Judgment :- S.U. KHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. First writ petition has been filed by the employer against award dated April 1, 1997 given by Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 76/1995. The matter, which was referred to the Tribunal by the Central Government was to the following effect: "Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India, Ballia/Varanasi in not regularising and terminating the services of Shri Babban Gupta-casual workman w.e.f. June 22, 1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?" 2. The case of workman Babban Gupta-respondent No. 2 in the first writ petition , was that he was engaged on March 29, 1991 as sub-staff and he worked till June 26, 1992 and was paid wages @ Rs. 25/- per day and as he had completed more than 240 days, hence his retrenchment without payment of notice pay, and retrenchment compensation was bad under Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal merely on the basis that concerned workman had worked 325 days held that his termination was bad for non-payment of, retrenchment compensation and notice pay. Tribunal further held that there was no evidence to prove the breach of Section 25-G & H of Industrial Disputes Act. In Para-7, Tribunal categorically held that: "The concerned workman is also not entitled for regularisation as he has worked for small period and there is no evidence that any post is available as regularisation can be made against existing alone." 3. Ultimately, Tribunal held that termination was bad in law and workman was entitled for reinstatement with back-wages but not for regularisation. 4. TheSupreme Court in the following authorities has held that if the only defect in the termination order is non-compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (or Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act) then payment of consolidated damages/compensation and not reinstatement is the proper relief. 1. Nagar Maha Palika v. State of U.P. 2006-II-LLJ-748 (SC) 2. Haryatia State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni 2006-II-) LLJ-744 (SC) 3. Regional Manager, S.B.L v. Mahatma Mishra 2007-I-LLJ-424 4. Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban 2007-II-LLJ-577 5. Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Cajraida and Another 2008-I-LLJ-855 6. 1. Nagar Maha Palika v. State of U.P. 2006-II-LLJ-748 (SC) 2. Haryatia State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni 2006-II-) LLJ-744 (SC) 3. Regional Manager, S.B.L v. Mahatma Mishra 2007-I-LLJ-424 4. Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban 2007-II-LLJ-577 5. Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Cajraida and Another 2008-I-LLJ-855 6. Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another v. Ashok Kumar and Another 2006 AIR SCW 1474 Paragraphs 6 to 13 of the authority of Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Cajraida and Another (supra) are quoted below? "6. Such termination of service/ having regard to the fact that he had completed 240 days of work during a period of 12 months preceding the said date, required compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. An order of retrenchment passed in violation of the said provision although can be set aside but as has been noticed by this Court in a large number of decisions, an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. 7. The factors which are relevant for determining the same, inter alia, are: (I) whether in making the appointment, the statutory rules, if any, had been complied with; (ii) theperiod he had worked; (iii) whether there existed any vacancy; and (iv) whether he obtained some other employment on the date of termination in passing of the award. 8. Respondent is a local authority. The terms and conditions of employment of the employees are governed by a statute and statutory rules. No appointment can be made by a local authority without following the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Any appointment made in violation of the said rules as also the constitutional scheme of equality as contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be a nullity. 9. Due to some exigency of work, although recruitment on daily wages or on an ad hoc basis was permissible, but by reason thereof an employee cannot claim any right to be permanently absorbed in service or made permanent in absence of any work in a year; preceding the date of retrenchment, the same would not mean that his services were liable to be regularized. 10. Applying the legal principles, as noticed hereinbefore, the relief granted in favour oft the appellant by the Labour Court is wholly unsustainable. The same also appears to be somewhat unintelligible. 11. 10. Applying the legal principles, as noticed hereinbefore, the relief granted in favour oft the appellant by the Labour Court is wholly unsustainable. The same also appears to be somewhat unintelligible. 11. The High Court, on the other hand, did 3 not consider the effect of noncompliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant was entitled to compensation notice and notice pay. 12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that in a situation of this nature instead and in place of directing reinstatement with full back wages, the workmen should be granted adequate monetary compensation. 13. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that as the appellant had worked only for a short period, the interest of justice will be subserved if the High Court judgment is modified by directing payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way of damages to the appellant by the respondent. Such payment 51 should be made within eight weeks from this date, failing which the same will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum." Paras No. 9 to 11 of Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another v. Ashok Kumar andAnother (supra) are quoted below: "9. The question which however, arises for consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding the relief of reinstatement with full back wages in favour of the workman. First respondent was admittedly appointed on a daily wage of Rs. 17/-per day. He worked for a bit more than two years. It has not been disputed before us that sanction of the State of U.P. was necessary for creation of posts. The contention of the appellant before the Labour Court that the post was not sanctioned after March 31, 1990 by the State was not denied or disputed. If there did not exist any post, in our opinion, the Labour Court should not have directed reinstatement of the first respondent in service. A statutory authority is obligated to make recruitments only upon compliance of the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment in violation of the said constitutional scheme as also the statutory Recruitment Rules, if any, would be void. A statutory authority is obligated to make recruitments only upon compliance of the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment in violation of the said constitutional scheme as also the statutory Recruitment Rules, if any, would be void. These facts were required to be kept in mind by the Labour Court before passing an award of reinstatement. 10. Furthermore, public Interest would not be subserved if after such a long lapse of time, the first respondent is directed to be reinstated in service. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be directed to pay compensation to the first respondent instead and in place of the relief of reinstatement in service." 5. Learned counsel for the employer-bank has also argued that by virtue of Para-508 of Shashtri Award, there are four kinds of employees, who may be appointed in the Bank, which are permanent employees, probationers, temporary employees and part time employees. According to the learned counsel, there is no concept of casual workman as used in the reference or daily wager as used in the impugned award. In this regard, learned counsel for the Bank has cited the authority of the Supreme Court in Branch Manager, M.P.S.A.I.D.C. Ltd v. S.C. Pandey 2006-II-LLJ-215 wherein it has been held that a daily wager" even after completing 240 days does not get any legal right and if appointment was made contrary to the provisions of the statute, the same would be void and employee cannot derive any legal right therefrom. 6. Learned counsel for the employer/bank has cited some authorities of this Court also, however, in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgments, I do not consider it necessary to discuss those authorities. 7. Learned counsel for the workman has cited the following authorities: 1. State of UP. and Others v. Matadeen 2007 (7) ADJ 413 (SC) Through the said judgment, special leave petition has been dismissed without assigning any reason. 2. State of U.P. and Others v. Matadeen 2006 (2) ADJ 232 (Against this judgment aforesaid S.L.P. was filed and dismissed.) The said authority is regarding daily wagers of Forest Department, which have been given special consideration by this Court and Supreme Court in view of the rampant practice of the Forest Department to appoint everyone as daily wager. 3. 2. State of U.P. and Others v. Matadeen 2006 (2) ADJ 232 (Against this judgment aforesaid S.L.P. was filed and dismissed.) The said authority is regarding daily wagers of Forest Department, which have been given special consideration by this Court and Supreme Court in view of the rampant practice of the Forest Department to appoint everyone as daily wager. 3. State of U. P. v. Putti Lal 2003 (96) FLR 252 (Alld.) It was the case regarding regularisation of service. Supreme Court in Constitution Bench authority of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006-II-LLJ-722 has deprecated the principle of regularisation. 4. Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and Others AIR 1999 SC 1160 : (1999) 5 SCC 601 : 1999-I-LLJ-1086. 8. It is the case regarding Contract Labour and Prohibition Act. Accordingly, first writ petition is allowed and impugned judgment of reinstatement with back wages is set aside and substituted by order of payment of consolidated damages as Indicated below. 9. Thegrievance of the workman in the second writ petition is that in pursuance of the Award challenged through the first writ petition, workman was reinstated in January, 1998 and back wages were given to him amounting to Rs. 40,000/-and odd and that since then he was constantly working. It has further been stated that since January, 2005, workman was being paid revised salary of about Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month and arrears were also paid occasionally such as Rs. 30,000/-on April 4, 2006 (Annexure-VI). However, since November, 2006, when in the first writ petition, Court was trying to persuade the parties to settle the dispute amicably, Bank substantially curtailed the wages and started paying the wages of daily wager to the workman, i.e. Rs. 25/- per day. The stand of the learned counsel for the Bank is that earlier regular wages of about Rs. 4000/- per month were wrongly being paid to the workman. Bank passed the order on December 23, 2006 contained in Annexure-10 to the second writ petition directing payment of Rs. 25/-per day to the workman. The said order has been challenged through the second writ petition. 10. As the award of reinstatement given by the Labour Court in favour of the workman has been set aside, hence second writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, second writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 11. 25/-per day to the workman. The said order has been challenged through the second writ petition. 10. As the award of reinstatement given by the Labour Court in favour of the workman has been set aside, hence second writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, second writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. 11. In view of the above, it is directed that instead of reinstatement with back wages, the workman Babban Gupta is entitled to consolidated damages of Rs. 50,000/-in addition to whatever amount has been paid to him till date. This amount shall be paid within two months failing which 1.5% per month ; interest shall be payable since after two months till actual payment.