JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The workman has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court 1 [High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur] whereby second appeal 2 [S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 414 of 2007] filed by the respondents was allowed setting aside the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below. 2. Briefly, the facts available on record are that the appellant was appointed as a conductor with the respondent no.1-Corporation 3 [Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation] on 14.12.1979. He was dismissed from service on 03.11.1982 on account of incorrect punching of tickets on one occasion and on three occasions, passengers were found travelling without tickets when the appellant was on duty. In appeal 4 [Order No. 2830], the order of dismissal was upheld vide order dated 19.10.1983. Challenging the order of dismissal, the appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Additional Munsiff Magistrate– II, Jaipur City on 26.04.1986. The suit was decreed on 31.03.2006. The Trial Court 5 [Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) – III, Jaipur City, Jaipur] held that the dismissal of the appellant was illegal as he was not granted fair opportunity of hearing. The judgment 6 [Civil Case No. 628 of 1988] and the decree of the Trial Court were challenged by the respondents by filing an appeal 7 [Civil Regular Appeal No. 27 of 2006]. The same was upheld by the First Appellate Court 8 [Court of Additional District Judge – VI, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Rajasthan)] vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.2007. Aggrieved, against the same, the respondents preferred second appeal before the High Court. The same was allowed vide impugned judgment 9 [Dated 13.07.2012] passed by the High Court on the ground that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as appellant should have invoked the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the aforesaid judgment of the High Court which is impugned in the present appeal by the appellant-workman. 3. Both the learned counsels sought to raise arguments in support and against the judgment of the High Court. The appellant claimed that Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the lis as there was complete violation of the principles of natural justice while awarding punishment. 3. Both the learned counsels sought to raise arguments in support and against the judgment of the High Court. The appellant claimed that Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the lis as there was complete violation of the principles of natural justice while awarding punishment. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents was that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the lis as the proper remedy for the appellant was under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. Both the learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Considering the fact that the appellant was appointed as conductor with the respondent no.1-Corporation on 14.12.1979 and he was dismissed on 03.11.1982, it is apparent that the appellant served the respondent no.1-Corporation for about 03 years. At present, considering the time gap ever since he was appointed, he must have attained the age of superannuation. In our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the appellant is awarded a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of going into the merits of controversy either deciding jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the lis or relegating the appellant to seek relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the High Court is modified to the extent that the appellant is held entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to resolve the entire controversy in hand. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.