1 16 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 351/2002. State & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Date of Order :: 23rd February 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.A. Siddique, Govt. Counsel, for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Saluja ] Mr. Shravan Singh ], for the respondent No.1. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 2777/2001 (State) under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against an order dated 23.07.2001 passed in WP No. 2777/2001 by the Single Judge. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the State of Rajasthan made an industrial reference to the Labour Court, Bikaner to decide the legality and propriety of the termination order dated 13.04.1985 of the respondent No.1 from the services of the State. 2 4. By the award dated 17.05.2000, the Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the respondent- workman and directed his reinstatement in service with payment of compensation of Rs. 2500/-. So far as back wages was concerned, it was declined on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The respondent-workman was satisfied with this award and, therefore, did not persue the matter further by filing any writ whereas the appellant (State) felt aggrieved, filed a writ before this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India out of which this appeal arises. 5. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ and as a consequence upheld the award passed by the Labour Court. It is against this order, the State has aggrieved and filed this intra-court appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal in part and modify the award of Labour Court and the impugned order of the writ court as indicated infra. 3 7. In our opinion, when admittedly, the respondent- workman did not work for more than a year and that too way back in the year 1984-85, we do not consider it proper to uphold the direction of his reinstatement in service. It is much more so when 25 years has since passed; and this Court vide interim order dated 30.05.2002 and 27.09.2002 was also pleased to stay the implementation of the award finding prima facie irregularities in the impugned award due to which the respondent remained out of service for all these years. In our opinion, it would not be proper in such circumstances to uphold the award in so far as it relates to reinstatement of the respondent-workman in service is concerned. Instead, we consider it just and proper to award an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent by way of compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in service. It would meet the ends of justice. A direction to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement is held legal in appropriate cases by Supreme Court. We prefer to exercise this discretion in the facts of this case. 4 8. Indeed learned counsel for the respondent-workman also agree for such modification so also quantum of compensation fixed by us. 9. Accordingly and in view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is allowed in part. Impugned award of Labour Court dated 17.05.2000 so also the impugned order dated 23.07.2001 are modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the concerned Labour Court within a period of three months from the date of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondent-workman would be entitled to withdraw the amount from the concerned Labour Court. Failure to deposit the amount within three months would make the appellant liable to pay interest on Rs. 50,000/- at the rate of 9% from the date of this order till the deposit is made. No cost. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (A.M. SAPRE),J. /Mohan/