ORDER
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 4th May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent was employed as a driver by the appellant in the month of January, 1991. His services were terminated in the year 2001. Before termination, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by filing an application for regularization of his services. The said application was disposed of with a direction that his services shall not be dispensed with either by engaging a driver through a contractor or by engaging a daily wager or by making such type of arrangements and directed to continue in service till a regular incumbent is appointed or till such time the work of driver is available. 3. It is the case of the appellant that in the year 2001, a regular driver was appointed and his services were terminated. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, before whom the matter was raised as an industrial dispute, has held that the respondent should be reinstated with 50% back wages. The Award was challenged before the High Court by way of a writ petition. The Division Bench, vide the impugned order, had dismissed the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgments in the case of (i) Incharge Officer and Another v. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126, (ii) Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 and (iii) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others v. Kailash Narayan Sharma reported in (2014) 16 SCC 440 to submit that as the respondent was working as a driver not by way of regular appointment but otherwise in a time gap arrangement, instead of directing for reinstatement, it would be appropriate that some lumpsum compensation be awarded to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent was not re-employed in compliance with the order of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as also of the High Court and he was not also paid the wages as per Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as directed by this Court vide order dated 29th February, 2008. However, we find that vide order dated 14th December, 2009, this Court had directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand) to the respondent in terms of Section 17B of the Act and the said amount has been paid, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It is also pointed out that the respondent has now attained the age of 68 years and, therefore, there is no question of his re-employment. 6. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and appropriate to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) in full and final settlement of all the claims of the respondent. The said amount shall be paid within a period of one month from today. 7. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.