JUDGMENT : 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent – workman. 2. State as petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 27.12.2019 in Reference (T) No.1833 of 2019. 3. Facts in brief referred in the petition are as under: 3.1. For the termination dated 01.06.1999, the respondent – workman raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court registered as Reference (T) No.1833 of 2019. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court awarded reinstatement without backwages. Aggrieved by the award dated 27.12.2019, the State has preferred this petition. 4. Heard Mr. Mayank Chavda, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the petitioner – State and Mr. P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the respondent – workman. 5. Mr. Chavda, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the petitioner submitted that the award of the Labour Court is erroneous because though the onus is on the workman, he failed to prove by producing evidence that he had completed 240 days in a year. The workman was called for part time work and no evidence was produced on record to justify that he had worked for 240 days. Since he was a part timer and had not completed 240 days and only worked as and when work was available, the finding of the Labour Court that there was breach of Section 25 F is erroneous. It is also referred in the petition that Sports Authority of Gujarat is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act and the employees are working with the Sports Authority of Gujarat on deputation basis. The workman was only working for six hours a day and since he was not paid the full wages payable to the Junior Clerk, the question of breach of Section 25F would not arise. He, thus, submitted that the award of the Labour Court is erroneous, and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondent – workman submitted that in the deposition, the workman had stated that he was working for six hours a day and had completed 240 days in a year. He, thus, submitted that the award of the Labour Court is erroneous, and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondent – workman submitted that in the deposition, the workman had stated that he was working for six hours a day and had completed 240 days in a year. Despite having completed 240 days in a year and since he had worked from the year 1996 to 1999 without following the provisions of the Act, he was terminated and therefore, the award of the Labour Court holding that there is breach of Section 25F of is appropriate. No documents were produced to disapprove that the workman had not completed 240 days in a year and not worked for six hours a day. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court of reinstatement without backwages is just and proper. However, since the workman had expired during pendency of the petition and his legal heirs are brought on record, this Court may consider for grant of lumpsum compensation instead of reinstatement. Learned Advocate, thus prayed to modify the award for grant of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement awarded. 7. Learned advocate for the workmen relied on the following decisions, in support of his submission of lumpsum compensation: (a) Legal Heirs of Dec. Manibahi Sursih Bariya vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.19731 of 2018 dated 16.11.2022. (b) Legal Heirs of Dec. Abhabhai Manabhai Khant vs. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.16107 of 2018 dated 09.08.2021. 8. Considered the submissions and decisions relied on. Revisitation of the facts reveal that the workman was working with the office of Sports Authority of Gujarat from the year 1996. In his deposition the workman had stated that he was working with Sports Authority of Gujarat, Gandhinagar as Junior Clerk from 08.05.1996 and he was selected by participating in the interview. It was his case before the Labour Court that he was terminated w.e.f. 01.06.1999 without following any procedure and thus, there was violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the I.D. Act. He was Class-IV employee and worked for six hours a day and had completed 240 days in a year. No contrary evidence was produced by the petitioner – State to justify that the workman had not completed 240 days in a year. He was Class-IV employee and worked for six hours a day and had completed 240 days in a year. No contrary evidence was produced by the petitioner – State to justify that the workman had not completed 240 days in a year. As recorded by the Labour Court at the time of termination, in the year 1999, his last wage was Rs.1350/-. In view of the fact that the workman is not alive and reinstatement is not possible, the contention of the petitioner that Sports Authority of Gujarat is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act, , at this stage ,in the opinion of this Court is not required to be gone into. However, considering the fact that the workman had completed 240 days in a year and had worked for six hours a day and his last salary in the year 1999 was Rs.1350/- p.m. and since reinstatement is not possible, this Court deems it appropriate to grant lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of award dated 27.12.2019. The award of the Labour Court dated 27.12.2019 is accordingly modified and petitioner – State is directed to pay lumpsum compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased workman within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 9. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged.