JUDGMENT : JAYANT PATEL, J. 1. Admit. Mr.Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives service of notice of admission. We have heard learned advocates for both the sides, for final disposal of the Appeal. The question to be considered in the present matter is, whether the lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') in case of daily wager who worked for about 3 to 4 years would be an appropriate relief or only the reinstatement in service. 2. So far as the backwages is concerned, the learned Single Judge has already quashed the award passed by the Labour Court to that extent and the respondent-workman has not preferred appeal against the said order. Hence, the said aspect is not required to be examined. 3. The relevant facts are that the respondent-workman was engaged as daily wager in December 1988 for some time and he was continued on the said work intermittently, as and when there was requirement of the work, up to 1992. On 20th June 1992 he was discontinued as daily wager. 4. The dispute was raised by the respondent-workman under the Act which, ultimately, came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference Case No.1/1993. 5. Before the Labour Court, the statement of claim was filed by the workman and the appellant also submitted written statement. The relevant abstracts of the muster roll were also produced by the respondent, as referred to by the Labour Court in the award. As per the appellant herein, the workman did not complete 240 days in any year from 1988 to 1992. Whereas, the case of the workman was that, he worked for more than 240 days. The workman led oral evidence and stated that he worked for 248 days. Whereas, on behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was led. The Labour Court drew adverse inference after considering the documentary evidence produced with the written statement and concluded that the workman had worked for 240 days and there was breach of provision of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court, thereafter, directed reinstatement with 20% backwages. The appellant preferred petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7381/2001. The Labour Court drew adverse inference after considering the documentary evidence produced with the written statement and concluded that the workman had worked for 240 days and there was breach of provision of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court, thereafter, directed reinstatement with 20% backwages. The appellant preferred petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7381/2001. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition by quashing the order of backwages but did not interfere with the award of the Labour Court for reinstatement since the learned Single Judge found that there is a finding recorded for completion of 240 days' service and violation of Section 25-F of the Act. Under the circumstances, the present Appeal before us. 6. We have heard Mr.Munshaw for the appellant and Mr.Dave for the respondent. 7. It is undisputed position that even as per the award of the Labour Court, the respondent-workman was engaged as daily wager and no evidence has been led to the effect that his engagement was on a permanent post or he was appointed on a regular scale even as temporary or adhoc. The wages were paid on daily rated basis. The Labour Court, of course, has not examined the aspect as to whether in case of daily engagement, the provision of Section 25-F of the Act would be attracted or not, in view of the definition of Section 2(oo)(bb), more particularly, because on behalf of the respondent no evidence was led but, it does appear that the Labour Court has taken into consideration the relevant documentary evidence produced i.e. log book, muster roll, etc. The evidence as considered by the Labour Court shows that the workman was engaged not continuously but during some period intermittently. However, in absence of other oral or documentary evidence produced on behalf of the employer, the Labour Court, by relying upon the evidence of the workman, concluded that the workman worked for 240 days. 8. So far as the finding of the Labour Court on the aspect of engagement of other workmen are concerned, it appears that in the deposition of the workman, the burden was not satisfactorily discharged to the extent as was required under the law. 8. So far as the finding of the Labour Court on the aspect of engagement of other workmen are concerned, it appears that in the deposition of the workman, the burden was not satisfactorily discharged to the extent as was required under the law. We find that in order to prove the breach of provision of Sections 25-G and 25-H, it would be required for the workman to lead the evidence by giving names of the persons who were continued, though juniors to him, and the persons who are offered employment after him, though fresh or junior to him. It is only thereafter that the burden would be upon the employer to show that the juniors were not retained in service or that the juniors or any other new persons were not offered any employment so as to come out from the provision of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. If the evidence as discussed by the Labour Court is considered, it appears that the workman did not satisfactorily discharged the burden upon him for proving the alleged breach of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, therefore, that part of the finding of the Labour Court could be said as perverse to the record. Under the circumstances, the matter remains for the alleged breach of provision of Section 25-F of the Act on the conclusion that the workman worked for the period of 240 days prior to his discontinuation or termination. 9. If the status of the workman was that of a daily rated and his engagement was not on a permanent or regular post and his engagement was only for some period intermittently as and when required and not continuously for a period of 240 days and if the engagement was also for 3 to 4 years, whether it would be a case for reinstatement in service or a lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be a sufficient order to meet with the ends of justice, is an aspect to be considered. 10. In the case of Jagbir Singh v/s. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, reported in (2009)15 SCC 327 , the Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar aspect and at paragraphs 14 and 17 it was observed thus: "14. 10. In the case of Jagbir Singh v/s. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, reported in (2009)15 SCC 327 , the Apex Court had an occasion to consider a similar aspect and at paragraphs 14 and 17 it was observed thus: "14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 17. While awarding compensation, a host of factors, inter alia, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service are relevant. Of course, each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances." Thereafter, in the said matter, the Apex Court ordered compensation of Rs. 50,000.00 to the workman who was daily wager, to be paid within stipulated time limit, failing which the payment of interest was also ordered. Similar question once again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v/s. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, reported in (2010)6 SCC 773 . In the said case, the Apex Court reiterated the same view and the relevant observations are at paragraphs 9 and 10, which read as under: "9. In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. 10. 10. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M.Lodha, J.) in Jagbir Singh v/s. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated, "It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice." 11. Thereafter, the Apex Court, having found that the daily wager was engaged for a period of about 2 to 3 years and the reinstatement, if maintained, was to be effected after 25 years, awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000.00 to each of the workmen and the payment thereof was to be made within the stipulated time, failing which the interest was also ordered to be paid. 12. We find that the facts of the present case are more or less similar to meet with the criteria laid down and the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred decisions, namely, that the respondent-workman worked for about 3 to 4 years. Further, the respondent was not engaged continuously but for some period intermittently. The engagement of the respondent was discontinued since last about 18 years and the reinstatement to be effected would be after 18 years. Under the circumstances, the appropriate compensation is required to be ordered in lieu of reinstatement. If the criteria for quantum of compensation is to be considered in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra) for the daily wager who worked for about 2 to 3 years, the Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000.00 and, therefore, it would be roughly Rs. 13,000.00 for each year of service. Even if it is considered for the respondent - workman who worked for about 4 years, the amount would be about Rs. 52,000.00 plus the expenses towards the litigations throughout borne by the workman. 40,000.00 and, therefore, it would be roughly Rs. 13,000.00 for each year of service. Even if it is considered for the respondent - workman who worked for about 4 years, the amount would be about Rs. 52,000.00 plus the expenses towards the litigations throughout borne by the workman. Hence, we find that the appropriate compensation in the present case in lieu of reinstatement would be Rs. 60,000.00 which is deserved to be awarded. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent - workman did rely upon the two decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Harjinder Singh v/s. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2010)3 SCC 192 and Anoop Sharma v/s. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana), reported in (2010)5 SCC 497 , by contending that if the breach of Section 25-F of the Act is found, reinstatement would be the only appropriate order and compensation cannot be substituted in lieu of reinstatement. 14. In the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), the pertinent aspect is that the workman was engaged on regular pay-scale and it was not even the case of the respondent - Corporation that he was a daily wage employee. The said aspect is reflected in paragraph 15 of the said decision. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court found that the observations by the High Court that the workman was daily wager was on unfounded assumption. Such is not the fact situation in the present case, since the respondent workman was admittedly a daily wager. Therefore, the said decision is of no help to the learned counsel for the respondent. In the case of Anoop Sharma (supra), the engagement was as 'Chowkidar' at monthly rate of Rs. 1,900.00 and not as a daily wager like in the present case. In the said decision, the Apex Court did record at para 26 that even as per the respondent before the Labour Court, it was not the case that the appellant was engaged or employed without following statutory rules or in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the Apex Court found that the High Court was not justified in relying upon the alleged illegality for upsetting the reinstatement awarded by the Labour Court. Such is not the fact situation in the present case, more particularly because as per the say of the workman he was employed as daily wager and there was no employment on monthly basis. Hence, the said decision is of no help to the respondent. 15. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we find that the reinstatement as confirmed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be modified by awarding lumpsum compensation to the respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement, because, even on the date when the learned Single Judge passed the order, the above referred decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Jagbir Singh (supra) and Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra) were already there, as per the decision of the Apex Court dated July 14, 2009 and April 26,2010 respectively. 16. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, we find that the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement in service and confirmed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of reinstatement, deserves to be set-aside and compensation in lieu of reinstatement deserves to be awarded. Hence, the respondent-workman shall be entitled to a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 60,000.00. The said amount shall be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum, and in any case, the payment shall be made within three months from today. 17. The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. Civil Application stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.