JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The order impugned in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, a judgment and award dated 22.07.2005 passed by the Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’).

2. The precise facts which are necessary for the present purposes are that a Reference came to be made to the Labour Court at the instance of the respondent No. 1, who claimed that he having worked for more than 240 days between 21.11.1991 to 20.10.2003 has been retrenched by an oral order without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Said reference came to be answered in respondent No. 1-employee’s favour by the Tribunal by award dated 22.07.2005.

4. On 17.12.2008, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court admitted the petition and stayed the effect and operation of the award dated 22.07.2005, passed by the Tribunal in the above Labour Dispute Case No. 18/2005.

5. Ms. Anjana Jawa, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the factual matrix of the case and pointed out that the respondent No. 1-applicant was purportedly retrenched in the year 2003 and after 2 years therefrom, a Reference came to be made in the year 2005.

6. While maintaining that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent No. 1 has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, learned counsel argued that the order passed by the Tribunal in the facts of the present case directing reinstatement with 50% back wages is contrary to settled legal position, inasmuch as, the finding that the respondent No. 1 had worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his retrenchment was based on conjectures and drawing an adverse inference. She submitted that the respondent No. 1 could only prove that he had worked for three days and hence, the Tribunal ought to have ordered lump-sum compensation, in lieu of reinstatement given that the respondent No. 1 had worked for less than a year.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The respondent No. 1-employee has attained the age of 57 years and he has not been working with the State for last 20 years, may be, because of interim order passed by this Court. Issuing any direction for reinstatement qua a person of 57 years of age would not be appropriate in the factual matrix.

9. Mr. Gour, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that a lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- be awarded with which his client would be satisfied as he also does not feel inclined to join and work as a labourer at this matured age.

10. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the factual backdrop, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the order of reinstatement when it had come on record that the workman worked on muster roll/as a casual labour.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-applicant relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of B.S.N.L. vs. Bhurumal, AIR 2014 SCW 258 (decided on 11.12.2013) and submitted that respondent-applicant be paid atleast Rupees 5 lacs as a lump-sum compensation having regard to inflation; (because in the year 2013, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of B.S.N.L. vs. Bhurumal (supra) and the ever increasing inflation, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the award dated 22.07.2005 is modified and the State is directed to pay a lump-sum compensation to the respondent No. 1-applicant to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

13. The award dated 22.07.2005 is, thus, accordingly modified. The respondent No. 1 is held entitled to get a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- instead of reinstatement and 50% back wages.

14. The amount be paid within a period of three months from today.

15. The writ petition so also all interlocutory applications, includin