Order : 1. Both these petitions have been preferred against the impugned award dated 27.03.2019 passed by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’) while deciding LCR No.44/2011, by which statement of claim submitted by the workman has been partly allowed and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- has been awarded to the workman. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, both employer as well as the workman have approached this Court by way of filing these petitions. 3. The workman raised an industrial dispute by way of filing a claim petition before the Labour Court stating therein that he was engaged as daily wager in June, 1981, by the petitioner-employer and he worked on the said post till 15.12.1988, and his services were terminated without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation. It was the case of the workman before the Labour Court that he worked with the employer for a period of more than 240 days in a calendar year and that there has been violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). The aforesaid claim petition filed by the workman was opposed the petitioner and after hearing arguments of both sides, the impugned award was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submits that no finding was recorded by the Labour Court while passing the order impugned about the fact that the workman had worked with the petitioner-employer for more than seven years and the only finding recorded was that he had worked with the petitioner for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year. Counsel submits that unless and until such finding is recorded that the workman has worked with the petitioner for a period of seven years, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is exorbitant. The workman was entitled to get a maximum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for one year of the preceding calendar year. Counsel further submits that the dispute was raised by the workman after a lapse of more than 22 years, but this fact has been overlooked by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Counsel further submits that the dispute was raised by the workman after a lapse of more than 22 years, but this fact has been overlooked by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposes the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that a specific pleading was made with regard to the fact that he worked with the petitioner w.e.f. June, 1981 till 15.12.1988, and this fact was not disputed by the petitioner, hence, there was no reason for recording such finding by the Labour Court at the time of passing of the impugned award. Counsel submits that the workman is a specially abled person suffering from more than 40% permanent disability as he is deaf and dumb. Counsel submits that the petitioner-employer assured the workman that they will reinstate him in service, that is why, a delay has occurred in filing the claim petition before the Labour Court. Counsel further submits that looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than seven years, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is quite inadequate, which needs suitable enhancement by this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 and Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. vs. Madanlal Tandon reported in 2015 DNJ (SC) 596 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by way of filing a statement of claim, pleading therein that he was engaged as a daily wager by the petitioner in the month of June, 1981 and he continued on the said post till 15.12.1988. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that his services were terminated without following the due process of law as contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. This fact was established on record by the workman by producing evidence, and a finding of fact was recorded in this regard. It was pleaded before the Labour Court that his services were terminated without following the due process of law as contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. This fact was established on record by the workman by producing evidence, and a finding of fact was recorded in this regard. Perusal of the entire record indicates that the period of service rendered by the workman has not been disputed by the petitioners in their reply submitted before the Labour Court, hence, there was no reason or occasion available with the Labour Court to record a finding in this regard. At the time of deciding the industrial dispute of a workman, the Labour Court is supposed to record a finding that the workman has worked with the employer for more than 240 days in a calender year or not and in the instant case, such finding has been recorded and on the basis of the same, the award has been passed. 8. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is ‘Whether looking to the period of services rendered by the workman i.e. more than seven years, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is adequate, or it needs enhancement. 9. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under:- “3. We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been `2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 10. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and anr. (supra), a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was awarded looking to the length of service period i.e. 10 years service of the workman, but here in this case, the workman has worked with the employer for more than seven years. 11. Looking to the length of service of the petitioner i.e. more than seven years and in view of the proposition as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and anr. (supra), the amount of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- is meagre amount, which needs enhancement. In consequence thereof, the workman is entitled to get a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (in words rupees Four Lakh only) in lieu of reinstatement. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition submitted by the employer stands dismissed and the writ petition submitted by the workman stands partly allowed. 13. The petitioner-employer is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the workman in addition to the amount awarded by the Labour Court to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. Needless to observe that, in case, the petitioner fails to comply with the order passed by this Court within above stipulated time, the workman would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till its actual payment. 15. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the impugned award stands modified.