ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner-workman impugns the award dated 09.08.2018, whereby the learned Labour Court while holding that the termination of the service of the petitioner- workman being illegal has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement in service with continuity and back-wages.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner-workman had worked with the respondent since the year 1979 continuously for a period of 22 years. He submits that the service of the petitioner came to be terminated orally in January, 2002 without following any due procedure of law. He submits that in spite of the petitioner-workman having rendered long service of 22 years, the learned Labour Court erred in granting a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- instead of reinstatement in service with continuity and back-wages. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2205 of 2023 dated 30.08.2024 in case of similarly situated workman working on the same project with the respondent, wherein this Court has set aside the award and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner-workman in service with continuity and pay all the retiral consequential benefits. He submits that the said judgment was challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No.855 of 2025 and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court has been upheld. He, therefore, submits that the present petition may also be allowed in terms of the said orders and similar relief be granted to the petitioner-workman herein.

4. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Sweety Samara appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the service period of the petitioner-workman has not been cogently proved by any evidence on record. She submits that since the respondent was not in a position to produce the muster roll/attendance sheets from the year 1979 till 2002, the learned Labour Court has drawn adverse inference. She submits that the Labour Court has granted appropriate lump sum compensation since on the date of passing of the award, the petitioner-workman had attained the age of superannuation. She submits that valid reasons have been recorded for granting such lump sum compensation and therefore, the impugned award may not be interfered with.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Considered the submissions. Perused the documents on record.

6. At the outset, it is a categorical finding given by the Labour Court that the petitioner-workman has worked with the respondent from 1979 till 2002 i.e. for a long period of 22 years. The service of the petitioner-workman came to be orally terminated without any due procedure of law in January, 2002. The petitioner-workman was employed at the Bhadar Irrigation Distribution, Sub Division, Lunawada, which is the part of Bhadar canal project. The only reason for granting lump sum compensation as recorded by the learned Labour Court in the impugned order is that on the date of passing of the award, the petitioner-workman had attained the age of superannuation and would have stood retired from service. No any explanation/cogent reason has been given as to why lump sum compensation of only Rs.20,000/- has been granted in the background of 22 long years of service, which has been put in by the petitioner-workman.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, a serious error has been committed by the learned Labour Court, whereby the petitioner-workman has been put to severe injustice after putting in a service of 22 years with the respondent. The Labour Court has clearly erred in awarding lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioner-workman. Nothing has been brought on record before the Labour Court or in the present proceedings to show that the service of