U.P.STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION LTD.versusDINESH MISHRA AND ANOTHER

                                               Reserved on 24.09.2026
                                               Delivered on 30.09.2026

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    WRIT - C No. - 53967 of 2012

U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd.
                                                       …..Petitioner(s)
                              Versus
Dinesh Mishra and another
                                                     …..Respondent(s)


                            D.P. Singh, Manohar Prasad Gupta, Shiv
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nath Singh, Vaibhav Tripathi, Vivek Kumar
                            Birla
                            B.N. Singh, Krishna Nand, Prakash Chandra
                            Pathak, Rahul Pandey, Rang Nath Pandey,
Counsel for
                          : Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava, Satish Chandra
Respondent(s)
                            Dubey, Shailendra Kumar Gupta, Shashi
                            Kumar Dwivedi


Court No. - 36

           HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1.    This is a writ petition of the year 2012 being filed by
Petitioner-U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. against an award
dated 24.05.2012 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur
in Adjudication Case No. 103 of 2005, whereby it was held that
retrenchment list issued by petitioner Employer was defective and
retrenchment of contesting-respondent vide order dated 25.04.2004
was declared completely irregular and illegal and it was directed that
                                             2
                                                                 Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

he shall be reinstated with continuity and entire back wages and other
benefits. Relevant part of award is reproduced hereinafter:

             "मैने पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया एवं पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत तकों पर विधिवत विचार
     किया गया ।

             पत्रावली के अवलोकन व पक्षों के तर्कों से स्पष्ट है कि वादी श्रमिक की नियुक्ति दि०
     12-9-1985 को दैनिक वेतन भोगी टंकक के पद पर की गयी थी और उसी पद पर आदेश
     दि० 18-3-1987 के द्वारा दि0 1-2-1987 से उसकी सेवायें नियमित करते हुये टंकक का
     वेतनमान दिया गया था और वादी लगातार छटनी के पूर्व दि० 25-4-2004 तक अबाधित
     काम करता रहा है। नियुक्ति के संबंध में आदेश दि० 12-9-1985 व 18-3-1987 को
     दाखिल किया गया है। अब मात्र यह विवादित है कि वादी की छटनी उ०प्र०औद्योगिक विवाद
     अधिनियम 1947 के प्राविधानों के तहत की गयी है या नहीं। नियमानुसार छटनी करते समय
     फस्ट कम लास्ट गो का प्राविधान लागू होता है। अब यह देखा जाना है कि क्या उन लोगों को
     काम पर बनाये रखते हुये बादी की छटनी कर दी गयी है जो उसके बाद में नियोजन में आये
     हैं। इस संबंध में वादी द्वारा दाखिल प्रदर्श डब्लू-9 जो कार्यालय ज्ञाप दि० 23-7-1998 है
     तथा जिसके साथ कर्मचारियों की बरिष्ठता सूची / कोटि क्रम भी संलग्न है में वादी का नाम
     क्रम सं04 पर है और उसकी नियुक्ति तिथि 1-2-1987 लिखी गयी है जबकि कार्यालय ज्ञाप
     के अनुसार "सर्वप्रथम वर्तमान पद पर कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि के अनुसार" ही
     नियुक्ति तिथि माने जाने का प्राविधान दिया गया है। इसके अनुसार वादी की नियुक्ति टंकक
     पद पर दैनिक वेतन पर दि० 12-09-1985 को हुई थी जिसके अनुपालन में वादी द्वारा दि०
     17-9-1985 को योगदान आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी थी उसके पश्चात वादी द्वारा कभी भी
     योगदान आख्या नहीं प्रस्तुत की गयी है। वादी नियोजन की तिथि से सेवा समाप्ति की तिथि
     तक टंकक के पद पर ही रहा है और टंकक का ही कार्य करता रहा है , अतः प्रदर्श डब्लू-9 के
     आधार पर वादी की प्रथम नियुक्ति तिथि 17-9-1985 ही मानी जानी चाहिये। प्रदर्श डब्लू-9
     ही प्रदर्श डब्लू-21 है जिसे सेवायोजक साक्ष्य द्वारा स्वीकार करने के बाद प्रदर्शित किया गया
     है। वादी की सेवायें समाप्त कर पुनः उसे नया नियोजन नहीं प्राप्त कराया गया था बल्कि
     18-3-1987 के आदेश से लगभग डे ढ माह पूर्व से ही दि० 1-2-1987 से नियमित किया
     गया है, इससे भी स्पष्ट है कि वादी का नियोजन दिनाँक 17-9-1985 से आदेश दि० 18-3-
     1987 तक अबाधित रहा है।

             सेवायोजकों का यह तर्क है कि वादी द्वारा कोई कोटि क्रम सूची या छटनी सूची के
     आधार पर कोई आपत्ति नहीं प्रस्तुत की गयी थी और छटनी को उसके द्वारा स्वीकार करते
     हुये छटनी की धनराशि प्राप्त कर ली गयी है। इस संबंध में सेवायोजकों द्वारा कोई ऐसा
                                          3
                                                               Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

प्रमाण नहीं प्रस्तुत किया गया कि वादी द्वारा कोटि क्रम सूची व छटनी सूची का कोई विरोध
नहीं किया गया जबकि वादी द्वारा कोटि क्रम सूची का विरोध व छटनी सूची का विरोध पत्र
तथा छटनी के बाद भी छटनी का विरोध पत्र दिया गया था जो प्रदर्श इब्लू- 14, 15, 16, 17
व. 18 है। अपने कथन के समर्थन में वादी द्वारा सेवायोजको से प्राप्ति रजिस्टर तलब कराये
गये थे जिसे उन्हों ने रजिस्टर न बनाये जाने के आधार पर प्रस्तुत नहीं किया जबकि उनके
गवाह द्वारा यह स्वीकार किया गया है कि एम०डी० कै म्प कार्यालय में डाक प्राप्त करने का
रजिस्टर होता था और डाक रजिस्टर पर चढकर ही एम०डी० के पास जाती थी। वादी दिनाँक
21-4-2004 को व्यक्तिगत रूप से आपत्ति प्राप्त करायी थी और रजिस्टर पर क्रम सं 085
पर उसे प्राप्त किया गया था। सेवायोजकों द्वारा यह भी स्वीकार किया गया है कि वादी का
आपत्ति प्रार्थना पत्र शासन से प्राप्त हुआ था जिसका उत्तर शासन को भेज दिया गया था
परन्तु उनके द्वारा वादी के विरोध पत्र को दाखिल नहीं किया गया है। उपर्युक्त स्थिति में
सेवायोजकों का यह कहना कि वादी द्वारा आपत्ति नहीं की गयी थी असंत्य एव निराधार है।
सेवायोजको का यह कथन कि वादी द्वारा छटनी मुआवजा प्राप्त कर लिया गया था इसलिये
उसके प्रार्थना पत्र पर विचार किये जाने की आवश्यकता नहीं थी। यह कथन पुष्टि करता है
कि वादी द्वारा छटनी का विरोध किया गया था और वादी ने प्रदर्श डब्लू-15,16 द्वारा छटनी
का भी विरोध करते हुये भुगतान की धनराशि वापस किये जाने की बात भी कही है।

        वादी द्वारा यह तथ्य भी उजागर किया गया है कि एक ही समय में कार्यालय
सहायक व सेल्स मैन का वेतनमान नही दिया जा सकता है, क्योंकि दोनों अलग-अलग
वेतनमान के पद है और कोटि क्रम सूची के क्रं माक 42 पर अवनीश चन्द्र श्रीवास्तव को
कार्यालय सहायक दर्शाया गया है और नियुक्ति तिथि 1-2-1987 लिखी है। इस सूची के
प्रदर्श डब्लू-9 व प्रदर्श डब्लू-21 से स्पष्ट है कि श्री अविनाश चन्द्र श्रीवास्तव की नियुक्ति 1-
2-1987 को हुई थी जबकि वादी दिनाँक 17-09-1985 से लगातार कार्यरत है, उपर्युक्त
विवेचना से पुष्ट होता है। सेवायोजको द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में या सूची की
प्रमाणिकता के संबंध में कोई भी अभिलेख या मौखिक साक्ष्य नहीं प्रस्तुत किया गया जबकि
वादी द्वारा यह कहा गया है कि अवनीश चन्द्र श्रीवास्तव की छटनी न कर के उन्हें कार्य पर
बताये रखा गया है। इस कोटि क्रम सूची को संशोधित करने या पुनः वरिष्ठता सूची न जारी
किये जाने की बात सेवायोजक साक्ष्य द्वारा स्वीकार किया गया है जब कि नियमानुसार
फाइनल वरिष्ठता सूची विभाग द्वारा तैयार की जानी चाहिये थी। सेवायोजकों द्वारा छटनी की
सूची त्रुटिपूर्ण है। छटनी सूची त्रुटिपूर्ण होने की बात इसी न्यायालय द्वारा पूर्व में मेरे
पूर्वाधिकारी द्वारा पारित अभिनिर्णय वाद सं0319/2005 व 94/2006 के एवार्ड में भी कही
गयी है। वादी श्रमिक मा० उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा दी गयी विधि व्यवस्था जो उ०प्र०
औ०वि०अधि01947 की धारा 6पी का विधिवत् पालन किये बिना की गयी छटनी अवैध
                                           4
                                                               Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

     मानी जायेगी के संबंध में है, प्रस्तुत की गयी है जो मा०उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद की
     लखनऊ बेंच द्वारा 2009 (121) एफ०एल०आर० पृ०79 चन्द्र पाल सिंह बनाम उ०प्र०राज्य
     एंव अन्य रिट पिटीशन नं06484/02है। इसी प्रकार अपने कथन के समर्थन में मा० बाम्बे
     उच्च न्यायालय 2007 (114) एफ०एल०आर० पृ०990 बाबू भीकाजी शिन्दे बनाम महाराष्ट्र
     स्टेट हैन्डलूम कारपोरे शन लि० एंव अन्य रिट पिटीशन सं० 678/1991 व मा० उच्चतम
     न्यायालय 2009 (120) एफ०एल०आर० पृ०143 कानपुर इलेक्ट्रिक सप्लाई कं ०लि० बनाम
     शमीम मिर्जा सिविल अपील सं06585/2008 में प्रतिपादित विधि व्यवस्था उद्धृत की है
     जिससे मै सहमत हूँ।

            उपर्युक्त विवेचना के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचता हूँ कि सेवायोजकों द्वारा
     जारी छटनी सूची त्रुटिपूर्ण है और इस सूची के आधार पर वादी की नियुक्ति तिथि 1-2-
     1987 मानते हुये की गयी छटनी अवैधानिक है, अतः दिनॉक 25-4-2004 से छटनी के रूप
     में वादी दिनेश कु मार मिश्रा की की गयी सेवा समाप्ति पूर्णतया अनुचित एंव अवैधानिक
     घोषित की जाती है। सेवायोजक वादी श्रमिक को सेवा की अखण्डता के साथ बेकारी अवधि
     का सम्पूर्ण वेतन व अन्य हितलाभों सहित कार्य पर बहाल करें । सेवायोजक वादी को भुगतान
     की गयी छटनी की धनराशि में बेकारी अवधि के वेतन व अन्य हितलाभों को समायोजित
     करते हुये भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें । इसके अतिरिक्त सेवायोजक वादी प्रतिनिधि को
     रू01000/- वाद परिव्यय के रूप में पृथक से भुगतान करें ।"

2.   Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri
Satish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for contesting-respondent,
have submitted various arguments as well as referred pleadings,
however, the Court is of the view that similar nature of awards were
challenged before this Court earlier wherein two different types of
orders were passed.

3.   The first judgment was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Kanpur Thru M.D.
and another vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow and
another, 2023:AHC-LKO:19838 whereby the writ petition filed by
petitioner was partly allowed and award challenged therein was
modified to the extent that order of setting aside retrenchment was
not interfered but a direction of lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs
                                       5
                                                        Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

towards back wages, instead of full back wages, was passed. The
relevant part of said judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

     “19. This Court on consideration of the award passed by the respondent
     no.1, finds that it is cryptic in nature. However, on looking to the
     evidence before the respondent no.1, this Court is of the opinion that the
     retrenchment order was incorrectly passed without following the
     principle as given under Section 6(P) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
     The State Government had issued an order on 18.03.2004 directing the
     principle of 6(P) of ''last come and first go' to be strictly followed by the
     Corporation while preparing the list of employees to be retrenched. It
     had also been specifically mentioned that the quota of reserved category
     candidates/ Roster must be maintained and only the juniors employees
     and unreserved category incumbents may be retrenched. As such, this
     Court finds that the reasoning as given in the Award dated 27.08.2018 to
     be unimpeachable.
     20. This Court has however also found from a perusal of documents filed
     before the Tribunal that the respondent no.2 had not stated anywhere that
     he was not gainfully employed. He had been given retrenchment
     compensation also for rendering almost thirty years of service. The
     Corporation was in a pitiable financial condition and therefore had to
     retrench its employees. At present less than 94 employees are working in
     the Corporation and it is on the verge of closure. The claim petition was
     filed in 2010 and has been decided in 2018. Before filing of the claim,
     the petitioner had filed a complaint before the U.P. State Backward
     Classes Commission and thereafter filed a Writ Petition and Special
     Appeal and also Claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services
     Tribunal. He may have had to do so and this Court cannot take any
     adverse view only because the respondent no.2 had approached different
     fora before approaching the Labour Court, but since there was no
     pleading on record on the basis of which it could be said that the
     respondent no.2 was entitled to entire back wages on setting aside of the
     retrenchment order, the direction for setting aside the retrenchment order
     with consequential benefits reinstatement with full back wages appears
     to be unreasoned and against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
     Court. The ordinary principle of grant of retrenchment with full
     backwages, when termination is found to be illegal is not to be applied
     mechanically in all cases while what may be the position where services
     of a regular / permanent workman are terminated illegally and / or
     malafide and / or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice etc.
     However, the Labour Court has wide discretion in granting relief when
                                      6
                                                        Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

     setting aside termination. It may look into the surrounding
     circumstances.
     21. The direction issued by the respondent no.1 for reinstatement with
     back wages could not have been issued as the Corporation was already
     incurring losses and this fact had come to the notice of the respondent
     no.1 and the respondent no.1 could have set aside the retrenchment order
     and structured the relief in such a manner as not to create additional
     financial burden of reinstatement when the Corporation was on the verge
     of closure. On facts, lump sum compensation for wrong retrenchment
     would have been the appropriate relief. (Reference, Hari Nandan Prasad
     and another vs. Employer FCI - 2014 (7) SCC 190; BSNL vs Bhurumal -
     2014 (7) SCC 177; Incharge Office and another vs. Shankar Shetty -
     2010 (9) SCC 126)
     22. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed and the Award dated
     27.08.2018 is modified to the extent that while the order of setting aside
     retrenchment is not being interfered with, a lump sum compensation of
     Rupees Two lakhs may be given to the respondent no.2 by the
     Corporation instead of back wages and reinstatement.
     23. The lump sum compensation shall be given by the petitioner to the
     respondent no.2 within a period of three months from today. In case of
     failure to do so, the respondent no.2 shall be entitled to get interest @
     6% per annum with effect from today till the date of actual payment of
     compensation.”

4.   Second judgment was passed by another Coordinate Bench of
this Court in M/D UP State Handloom vs. Smt. Meena Devi,
2024:AHC:6695 whereby impugned award was set aside but instead
to grant one time lump sum compensation matter was remanded to
Labour Court to decide afresh. It appears that above referred
judgment in U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Kanpur Thru
M.D. (supra) was not placed before Coordinate Bench, who has
decided matter in Meena Devi (supra). Relevant part of judgment in
Meena Devi (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:

     “8. The Court has perused the records.
     9. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that respondent-workman was
     appointed in the petitioner's corporation and the stand of the petitioner is
                                      7
                                                        Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

     that the respondent was appointed vide letter dated 30.08.1994 and on
     perusal of the said letter, it reveals that the appointment was not made in
     dying in harness basis, but the respondent-employee was appointed as a
     regular employee. It is also not in dispute between the parties that due to
     financial crunch as well as withdrawal of the subsidy by the Government
     on control items, the financial position of Handloom Corporation was
     gone to the extent that it was not in a position to pay the salary to its
     employees. It is also not in dispute that the State Government as well as
     Central Government took a decision to rehabilitate the Handloom
     Corporation by implementing the 'Deen Dayal Hathkargha Protsahan
     Yojana' and in pursuance of the said rehabilitation scheme, decision was
     taken for retrenchment of its employees, including the respondent-
     employee. A tentative seniority list was prepared and the objection was
     called, if any, and thereafter, the final seniority list was prepared, which
     was also published in the daily newspaper. Further, the principle of last
     come first go' for retrenchment was adopted after following the due
     process of retrenchment, the respondent-workman was retrenched.
     10. The record further reveals that the respondent-workman has accepted
     their compensation of retrenchment as well as other dues and the same
     was credited to her bank account without raising any objection, but
     subsequently, the dispute has been raised taking other ground as well as
     one of the grounds was that the respondent-workman was appointed in
     dying in harness and therefore, her services cannot be terminated within
     ten years of the appointment, hence in view of the said ground, the
     impugned order was passed. The fact that the appointment letter was
     issued on 30.04.1994, which has not been considered while passing the
     award wherein no such condition has been mentioned that the
     appointment of the respondent-workman has been made in dying in
     harness and this vital appointment letter has been overlooked by the
     authorities while passing the impugned award and therefore, the
     impugned award cannot sustain in the eye of law.
     11. In view of the facts as stated above, the impugned award is set aside
     the matter is remanded to decide afresh within four months after hearing
     all the stakeholder, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to
     either of the party. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.”

5.   In the present case also, contesting-respondent has accepted
retrenchment compensation without any protest or objection. An
issue, whether said respondent has opposed seniority list was dealt by
Labour Court and a finding was returned that objections were filed.
                                        8
                                                         Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

The contesting-respondent was initially appointed as a Daily Wager
on 12.09.1985 and regularized vide order dated 18.03.1987 and
according to him he has continuously worked thereafter till
25.04.2005 when he was retrenched after accepting retrenchment
compensation.

6.    The case of respondent-workman was that since objections
were made to seniority list and workmen who were junior were not
retrenched, therefore, only on ground that he has accepted
retrenchment compensation, his retrenchment cannot be justified.

7.    Contesting-respondent has declared his age as 52 years when a
counter affidavit was filed on his behalf in the month of November,
2012, therefore, presently he has already crossed age of
superannuation. As such, the order of reinstatement cannot be
implemented and now the only issue is with regard to monetary
benefit, if any.

8.    In this regard the Court takes note of a judgment passed by this
Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
vs. Sri Chhotelal and another, 2026:AHC:168675 and relevant part
thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

      “9. Supreme Court in a recent judgment of Maharashtra State Road
      Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, 2025 INSC 218 has
      considered above referred issue wherein after taking note of various
      earlier judgments on the issue, held as follows :-
             “43. We cannot but endorse our wholehearted concurrence with
             the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions. Taking a cue
             therefrom, it can safely be concluded that ordering back wages to
             be paid to a dismissed employee - upon his dismissal being set
             aside by a court of law - is not an automatic relief; grant of full or
             partial back wages has to be preceded by a minor fact-finding
             exercise by the industrial adjudicator/court seized of the
             proceedings. Such exercise would require the relevant industrial
                          9
                                            Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

court or the jurisdictional high court or even this Court to
ascertain whether in the interregnum, that is, between the dates of
termination and proposed reinstatement, the employee has been
gainfully employed. If the employee admits of any gainful
employment and gives particulars of the employment together
with details of the emoluments received, or, if the employee
asserts by pleading that he was not gainfully employed but the
employer pleads and proves otherwise to the satisfaction of the
court, the quantum of back wages that ought to be awarded on
reinstatement is really in the realm of discretion of the court. Such
discretion would generally necessitate bearing in mind two
circumstances : the first is, the employee, because of the order
terminating his service, could not work for a certain period under
the employer and secondly, for his bare survival, he might not
have had any option but to take up alternative employment. It is
discernible from certain precedents, duly noticed in Deepali
Gundu Surwase (supra), that the courts are loath to award back
wages for the period when no work has been performed by such
an employee. Such a view is no doubt debatable, having regard to
the ratio decidendi in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. (supra),
Surendra Kumar Verma (supra) and Deepali Gundu Surwase
(supra). Though the latter decision was cited before the coordinate
bench when it decided Phool Chand (supra), any thoughtful
discussion appears to be absent.
44. There is one other aspect that would fall for consideration of
the court. In certain decisions, noticed in Deepali Gundu Surwase
(supra), it has been opined that whether or not an employee has
been gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and
having regard to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the
burden of proof is on him. What is required of an employee in
such a case? He has to plead in his statement of claim or any
subsequent pleading before the industrial tribunal/labour court
that he has not been gainfully employed and that the award of
reinstatement may also grant him back wages. If the employee
pleads that he was not gainfully employed, he cannot possibly
prove such negative fact by adducing positive evidence. In the
absence of any contra-material on record, his version has to be
accepted. Reference in this connection may be made to Section
17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confers a right
on an employee to seek "full wages last drawn" from the
employer while the challenge of the employer to an award
directing reinstatement in a higher court remains pending. There
                                    10
                                                      Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

           too, what is required is a statement on affidavit regarding non-
           employment and with such statement on record, the ball is in the
           court of the employer to satisfy the court why relief under such
           section ought not to be granted by invoking the proviso to the
           section. We see no reason why a similar approach may not be
           adopted. After the employee pleads his non-employment and if the
           employer asserts that the employee was gainfully employed
           between the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the
           onus of proof would shift to the employer to prove such assertion
           having regard to the cardinal principle that 'he who asserts must
           prove'. Law, though, seems to be well settled that if the employer
           by reason of its illegal act deprives any of its employees from
           discharging his work and the termination is ultimately held to be
           bad in law, such employee has a legitimate and valid claim to be
           restored with all that he would have received but for being
           illegally kept away from work. This is based on the principle that
           although the employee was willing to perform work, it was the
           employer who did not accept work from him and, therefore, if the
           employer's action is held to be illegal and bad, such employer
           cannot escape from suffering the consequences. However, it is
           elementary but requires to be restated that while grant of full back
           wages is the normal rule, an exceptional case with sufficient proof
           has to be set up by the employer to escape the burden of bearing
           back wages.
           45. We hasten to add that the courts may be confronted with cases
           where grant of lumpsum compensation, instead of reinstatement
           with back wages, could be the more appropriate remedy. The
           courts may, in such cases, providing justification for its approach
           direct such lumpsum compensation to be paid keeping in mind the
           interest of the employee as well as the employer.”
     10. In aforesaid circumstances and taking note of above referred position
     of law and rival submissions, Court finds that an order of granting full
     backwages since reinstatement was not possible would not be justified
     considering that respondent-workman has not provided any affidavit or
     declaration that he was not gainfully employed for period of 30 years
     when award proceedings remained pending.”

9.   According to contesting-respondent’s case he has worked from
1985 to 2004, i.e., for about 19 years, initially as a Daily Wager and
subsequently as a Typist, therefore, also taking note of aforesaid
judgments, especially para 20 of judgment in U.P. State Handloom
                                                                       11
                                                                                      Writ C No. 53967 of 2012

                                    Corporation Ltd. Kanpur Thru M.D. (supra) and the judgment passed
                                    by this Court in Sri Chhotelal (supra), the award can be modified by
                                    payment of a lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement and
                                    full back wages, as already referred reinstatement is not possible
                                    now.

                                    10.    In aforesaid circumstances, considering the period for which
                                    contesting-respondent has worked, time took before Labour Court as
                                    well as before this Court, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3 lacs
                                    would be reasonable.

                                    11.    In view of above, impugned award dated 24.05.2012 is
                                    modified that instead of reinstatement with full back wages,
                                    petitioner will pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to
                                    contesting-respondent within a period of four weeks from today.

                                    12.    The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.



                                                                    (SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    AK




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad