Reserved on 24.09.2026 Delivered on 30.09.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 53967 of 2012 …..Petitioner(s) Versus Dinesh Mishra and another …..Respondent(s) 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 U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Counsel for Petitioner(s) : D.P. Singh, Manohar Prasad Gupta, Shiv Nath Singh, Vaibhav Tripathi, Vivek Kumar Birla Counsel for Respondent(s) : B.N. Singh, Krishna Nand, Prakash Chandra Pathak, Rahul Pandey, Rang Nath Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava, Satish Chandra Dubey, Shailendra Kumar Gupta, Shashi Kumar Dwivedi 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 अवली काने किकाया एव पक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुतु तुका परा किवधिवतु किवचारा किकाया गया । पत्रावली का अवली काने व पक्षों का तुका से स्पष्ट है किका वदी श्रधिमैका का% किनेयाक्ति'तु दिदी० 12-9-1985 का दीकिनेका वतुने भो ग टंकाका का पदी परा का% गया थी औरा उसे पदी परा आदीश दिदी० 18-3-1987 का द्वारा दिदी0 1-2-1987 से उसेका% सेवया किनेयाधिमैतु कारातु हुया टंकाका का वतुनेमैने दिदीया गया थी औरा वदी लीगतुरा छटंने का प3व4 दिदी० 25-4-2004 तुका अबाधितु कामै कारातु राहै है। किनेयाक्ति'तु का सेबा मै आदीश दिदी० 12-9-1985 व 18-3-1987 का दीखि7ली किकाया गया है। अबा मैत्रा याहै किववदिदीतु है किका वदी का% छटंने उ०प्र०औद्यो किगका किववदी अधिकिनेयामै 1947 का प्रकिवने का तुहैतु का% गया है या नेहै9। किनेयामैनेसेरा छटंने कारातु सेमैया फस्टं कामै लीस्टं ग का प्रकिवने लीग3 है तु है। अबा याहै दी7 जाने है किका 'या उने ली ग का कामै परा बानेया रा7तु हुया बादी का% छटंने कारा दी गया है जा उसेका बादी मै किनेया जाने मै आया है<। इसे सेबा मै वदी द्वारा दीखि7ली प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-9 जा काया4लीया ज्ञाप दिदी० 23-7-1998 है तुथी जिजासेका सेथी कामै4चारिराया का% बारिराष्ठतु से3चा / का किटं क्रमै भो सेलीग्ने है मै वदी का नेमै क्रमै से04 परा है औरा उसेका% किनेयाक्ति'तु धितुधिथी 1-2-1987 लिली7 गया है जाबाकिका काया4लीया ज्ञाप का अनेसेरा " सेव4प्रथीमै वतु4मैने पदी परा काया4भोरा ग्रहैण काराने का% धितुधिथी का अनेसेरा" है किनेयाक्ति'तु धितुधिथी मैने जाने का प्रकिवने दिदीया गया है। इसेका अनेसेरा वदी का% किनेयाक्ति'तु टंकाका पदी परा दीकिनेका वतुने परा दिदी० 12-09-1985 का हुई थी जिजासेका अनेपलीने मै वदी द्वारा दिदी० 17-9-1985 का या गदीने आख्या प्रस्तुतु का% गया थी उसेका पश्चातु वदी द्वारा काभो भो या गदीने आख्या नेहै9 प्रस्तुतु का% गया है। वदी किनेया जाने का% धितुधिथी से सेव सेमैप्तिMतु का% धितुधिथी तुका टंकाका का पदी परा है राहै है औरा टंकाका का है काया4 कारातु राहै है, अतुN प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-9 का आरा परा वदी का% प्रथीमै किनेयाक्ति'तु धितुधिथी 17-9-1985 है मैने जाने चाकिहैया। प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-9 है प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-21 है जिजासे सेवया जाका सेक्ष्या द्वारा स्व कारा काराने का बादी प्रदीर्शिशQतु किकाया गया है। वदी का% सेवया सेमैMतु कारा पनेN उसे नेया किनेया जाने नेहै9 प्रMतु काराया गया थी बाल्किSका 18-3-1987 का आदीश से लीगभोग डढ मैहै प3व4 से है दिदी० 1-2-1987 से किनेयाधिमैतु किकाया गया है, इसेसे भो स्पष्ट है किका वदी का किनेया जाने दिदीनेUका 17-9-1985 से आदीश दिदी० 18-3- 1987 तुका अबाधितु राहै है। सेवया जाका का याहै तुका4 है किका वदी द्वारा का ई का किटं क्रमै से3चा या छटंने से3चा का आरा परा का ई आपलिV नेहै9 प्रस्तुतु का% गया थी औरा छटंने का उसेका द्वारा स्व कारा कारातु हुया छटंने का% नेरालिश प्रMतु कारा ली गया है। इसे सेबा मै सेवया जाका द्वारा का ई ऐसे 3 Writ C No. 53967 of 2012 प्रमैण नेहै9 प्रस्तुतु किकाया गया किका वदी द्वारा का किटं क्रमै से3चा व छटंने से3चा का का ई किवरा नेहै9 किकाया गया जाबाकिका वदी द्वारा का किटं क्रमै से3चा का किवरा व छटंने से3चा का किवरा पत्रा तुथी छटंने का बादी भो छटंने का किवरा पत्रा दिदीया गया थी जा प्रदीश4 इब्ली3- 14, 15, 16, 17 व. 18 है। अपने काथीने का सेमैथी4ने मै वदी द्वारा सेवया जाका से प्रप्तिMतु राजिजास्टंरा तुलीबा काराया गया थी जिजासे उन्हैने राजिजास्टंरा ने बानेया जाने का आरा परा प्रस्तुतु नेहै9 किकाया जाबाकिका उनेका गवहै द्वारा याहै स्व कारा किकाया गया है किका एमै०डY० का म्प काया4लीया मै डका प्रMतु काराने का राजिजास्टंरा है तु थी औरा डका राजिजास्टंरा परा चाढकारा है एमै०डY० का पसे जातु थी । वदी दिदीनेUका 21-4-2004 का व्यक्ति'तुगतु रूप से आपलिV प्रMतु काराया थी औरा राजिजास्टंरा परा क्रमै से085 परा उसे प्रMतु किकाया गया थी। सेवया जाका द्वारा याहै भो स्व कारा किकाया गया है किका वदी का आपलिV प्रथी4ने पत्रा शसेने से प्रMतु हुआ थी जिजासेका उVरा शसेने का भोजा दिदीया गया थी परान्तु उनेका द्वारा वदी का किवरा पत्रा का दीखि7ली नेहै9 किकाया गया है। उपया4'तु ल्किस्थीधितु मै सेवया जाका का याहै काहैने किका वदी द्वारा आपलिV नेहै9 का% गया थी असेत्या एव किनेरारा है। सेवया जाका का याहै काथीने किका वदी द्वारा छटंने मैआवजा प्रMतु कारा लिलीया गया थी इसेलिलीया उसेका प्रथी4ने पत्रा परा किवचारा किकाया जाने का% आवश्याकातु नेहै9 थी । याहै काथीने पधिष्ट कारातु है किका वदी द्वारा छटंने का किवरा किकाया गया थी औरा वदी ने प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-15,16 द्वारा छटंने का भो किवरा कारातु हुया भोगतुने का% नेरालिश वपसे किकाया जाने का% बातु भो काहै है। वदी द्वारा याहै तुथ्या भो उजागरा किकाया गया है किका एका है सेमैया मै काया4लीया सेहैयाका व सेSसे मैने का वतुनेमैने नेहै दिदीया जा सेकातु है, 'याकिका दी ने अलीग-अलीग वतुनेमैने का पदी है औरा का किटं क्रमै से3चा का क्र मैका 42 परा अवने श चान्द्र श्र वस्तुव का काया4लीया सेहैयाका दीश4या गया है औरा किनेयाक्ति'तु धितुधिथी 1-2-1987 लिली7 है। इसे से3चा का प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-9 व प्रदीश4 डब्ली3-21 से स्पष्ट है किका श्र अकिवनेश चान्द्र श्र वस्तुव का% किनेयाक्ति'तु 1- 2-1987 का हुई थी जाबाकिका वदी दिदीनेUका 17-09-1985 से लीगतुरा काया4रातु है, उपया4'तु किववचाने से पष्ट है तु है। सेवया जाका द्वारा अपने काथीने का सेमैथी4ने मै या से3चा का% प्रमैजिणकातु का सेबा मै का ई भो अलिभोली7 या मैaखि7का सेक्ष्या नेहै9 प्रस्तुतु किकाया गया जाबाकिका वदी द्वारा याहै काहै गया है किका अवने श चान्द्र श्र वस्तुव का% छटंने ने कारा का उन्है काया4 परा बातुया रा7 गया है। इसे का किटं क्रमै से3चा का सेश धितु काराने या पनेN वरिराष्ठतु से3चा ने जाराY किकाया जाने का% बातु सेवया जाका सेक्ष्या द्वारा स्व कारा किकाया गया है जाबा किका किनेयामैनेसेरा फइनेली वरिराष्ठतु से3चा किवभोग द्वारा तुयारा का% जाने चाकिहैया थी । सेवया जाका द्वारा छटंने का% से3चा त्राकिटंप3ण4 है। छटंने से3चा त्राकिटंप3ण4 है ने का% बातु इसे न्यायालीया द्वारा प3व4 मै मैरा प3व4धिकाराY द्वारा परिरातु अलिभोकिनेण4या वदी से0319/2005 व 94/2006 का एवड4 मै भो काहै गया है। वदी श्रधिमैका मै० उच्चा न्यायालीया, इलीहैबादी द्वारा दी गया किवधि व्यवस्थी जा उ०प्र० औ०किव०अधि01947 का% रा 6 प का किवधिवतुc पलीने किकाया किबाने का% गया छटंने अव 4 Writ C No. 53967 of 2012 मैने जायाग का सेबा मै है, प्रस्तुतु का% गया है जा मै०उच्चा न्यायालीया, इलीहैबादी का% ली7नेऊ बाचा द्वारा 2009 (121) एफ०एली०आरा० पe०79 चान्द्र पली सिंसेQहै बानेमै उ०प्र०राज्या एव अन्या रिराटं किपटं शने ने06484/02 है। इसे प्रकारा अपने काथीने का सेमैथी4ने मै मै० बाम्बा उच्चा न्यायालीया 2007 (114) एफ०एली०आरा० पe०990 बाबा3 भो काजा लिशन्दी बानेमै मैहैराष्ट्र स्टंटं हैन्डली3मै काराप राशने लिली० एव अन्या रिराटं किपटं शने से० 678/1991 व मै० उच्चातुमै न्यायालीया 2009 (120) एफ०एली०आरा० पe०143 कानेपरा इलील्कि'ट्रका सेMलीई का ०लिली० बानेमै शमै मै धिमैजा4 लिसेकिवली अप ली से06585/2008 मै प्रधितुपदिदीतु किवधि व्यवस्थी उद्धृeतु का% है जिजासेसे मै सेहैमैतु हूँU। उपया4'तु किववचाने का आरा परा मै< इसे किनेष्कार्ष4 परा पहुUचातु हूँU किका सेवया जाका द्वारा जाराY छटंने से3चा त्राकिटंप3ण4 है औरा इसे से3चा का आरा परा वदी का% किनेयाक्ति'तु धितुधिथी 1-2- 1987 मैनेतु हुया का% गया छटंने अवकिनेका है, अतुN दिदीनेmका 25-4-2004 से छटंने का रूप मै वदी दिदीनेश का मैरा धिमैश्र का% का% गया सेव सेमैप्तिMतु प3ण4तुया अनेधिचातु एव अवकिनेका घो किर्षतु का% जातु है। सेवया जाका वदी श्रधिमैका का सेव का% अ7ण्डतु का सेथी बाकाराY अवधि का सेम्प3ण4 वतुने व अन्या किहैतुलीभो सेकिहैतु काया4 परा बाहैली कारा। सेवया जाका वदी का भोगतुने का% गया छटंने का% नेरालिश मै बाकाराY अवधि का वतुने व अन्या किहैतुलीभो का सेमैया जिजातु कारातु हुया भोगतुने काराने सेकिनेखिश्चातु कारा। इसेका अधितुरिरा'तु सेवया जाका वदी प्रधितुकिनेधि का रू01000/- वदी परिराव्यया का रूप मै पeथीका से भोगतुने कारा।" 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