JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and two learned counsel for workman respondent No. 2, Madan Pal Singh, one at the earlier stage and other at the later stage. 2. This writ petition is directed against award dated 22.9.1990 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II) U.P. Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 135 of 1989. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 2, Madan Pal Singh w.e.f. 21.8.1987 was just and valid or not. The case of the workman was that he was a muster-roll employee of the petitioner from 14.10.1986 to 20.8.1987 and was working on the post of supervisor as daily wager and that no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Petitioner employer contended that workman from 14.10.1986 to 20.8.1987 had worked with breaks and not continuously. The labour Court held that the workman had completed 240 days of work, hence without payment of retrenchment compensation, the termination was wrong. Ultimately, reinstatement with full back wages was directed. Through interim order dated 27.10.1994 passed in this writ petition, operation of the impugned award was stayed. 3. The Supreme Court in several authorities some of which are mentioned below has held that if the only defect in the termination order is non payment of retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act (or Section 6 N of U.P.I.D. Act) then it is not always necessary to direct reinstatement with full back wages and that in such situation more often than not proper relief may be to award consolidated damages/compensation particularly when the employer is Government or Governmental agency and relevant Rules have not been followed before appointment. “Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U. P.” AIR 2006 SC 2113 “Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn. v. Mamni” AIR 2006 SC 2427 “Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute” AIR 2008 SC 1955 “Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another” AIR 2009 SC 3004 4. “Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U. P.” AIR 2006 SC 2113 “Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn. v. Mamni” AIR 2006 SC 2427 “Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute” AIR 2008 SC 1955 “Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another” AIR 2009 SC 3004 4. In Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, AIR 2010 SC 2140 , it has been held that if daily wagers had worked for 2 or 3 years and their services were terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation then consolidated damages should be awarded to them (Rs.40,000/- to each of the workman was awarded in the said case). It has also been held that daily wager does not hold a post and cannot be equated with permanent employee. This view has been reiterated in Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, JT 2010(9) 262. 5. In view of this I passed the following order on 26.5.2009, which is quoted below: “This writ petition is directed against award directing reinstatement with full back wages. Impugned award was stayed through interim order passed in this writ petition. The Court suggests in terms of Section 89 C.P.C. that both the parties may try to settle the dispute amicably. One of the possible modes of settlement may be that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is paid by the employer to the workman in full and final settlement of any possible claim and workman gives up his right of reinstatement and back wages under the impugned award. List on 15.7.2009. However, if the matter is to be argued then learned counsel shall supply typed copy of the impugned award. Office is directed to supply copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Misra, learned standing counsel within three days. “ 6. Thereafter, on 26.10.2010 following order was passed: “Learned standing counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of order dated 26.5.2009 passed in this writ petition, petitioner has paid Rs. 25,000/- to workman respondent No. 2 Madan Pal Singh. The cheque has been accepted by respondent No. 2 on 25.5.2010. Photo copy of the same has been placed on record as well as supplied to Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the workman respondent. Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the workman respondent requires only one week’s time to verify the fact of receipt of the cheque by the workman. Photo copy of the same has been placed on record as well as supplied to Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the workman respondent. Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the workman respondent requires only one week’s time to verify the fact of receipt of the cheque by the workman. Accoirdingly, the case is passed over. List peremptorily on 9.11.2010.” 7. Thereafter, the workman changed his counsel, who gave a strange statement which is recorded in the order dated 9.11.2010, which is quoted below: “Learned counsel for the workman respondent states that his client received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on the understanding that the said amount was only in lieu of back wages. Learned counsel further states that respondent workman is very much desirous of supporting the reinstatement part of the impugned award. If it is so, then the amount received by respondent workman shall be returned through draft drawn in the name of Executing Engineer, petitioner No. 3. List on 7.12.2010. “ 8. Thereafter, Sri Kunwar Shyam Babu, the new counsel engaged by workman respondent, on 5.1.2011 sought two weeks further time. Order dated 5.1.2011 is quoted below: “In view of the order dated 9.11.2010, learned counsel for the respondent Sri Kunwar Shyam Babu submits that atleast two weeks’ time may be given for compliance of the order dated 9.11.2010. The prayer sought is allowed. List this case on 24th January, 2011 before the appropriate Court. By that time, learned counsel for the respondent shall comply with the order dated 9.11.2010.” 9. Thereafter, on 24.1.2011 following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has filed an application for recall of my order dated 7.12.2010. Let the same be considered on the next date. The Court is of the opinion that the Executive Engineer, Madhya Ganga Nagar Nirman Khand-8, Bulandshahar, who passed the order dated 16.9.2009, which has been filed alongwith short-counter-affidavit dated 17.10.2010, cannot even understand plain English or he is in collusion with the workman respondent No. 2. In my order dated 26.5.2009, there was no such direction that the respondent No. 2 must be reinstated and Rs. 25,000/- must also be paid to him. My suggestion in the said order was that only Rs. 25,000/- must be paid to him. The order dated 26.5.2009 is quoted below : “This writ petition is directed against award directing reinstatement with full back wages. 25,000/- must also be paid to him. My suggestion in the said order was that only Rs. 25,000/- must be paid to him. The order dated 26.5.2009 is quoted below : “This writ petition is directed against award directing reinstatement with full back wages. Impugned award was stayed through interim order passed in this writ petition. The Court suggests in terms of Section 89 C.P.C. that both the parties may try to settle the dispute amicably. One of the possible modes of settlement may be that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is paid by the employer to the workman in full and final settlement of any possible claim and workman gives up his right of reinstatement and back wages under the impugned award. List on 15.7.2009. However, if the matter is to be argued then learned counsel shall supply typed copy of the impugned award. Office is directed to supply copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Misra, learned standing counsel within three days.” The Executive Engineer concerned is directed to appear in person and file his personal affidavit on 10.2.2011. List on 10.2.2011. The Court is tentatively of the opinion that recommendation must be made for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Executive Engineer after suspending him forthwith and Court proposes to make a recommendation for the same unless a good cause for not doing that is shown by the Executive Engineer concerned in his affidavit. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel by tomorrow, who shall send the same to the Executive Engineer concerned. Sri Mishra is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Government of U.P., which is appointing authority of the Executive Engineer concerned.” 10. In pursuance of my directions, affidavit of Executive Engineer was filed. A short counter-affidavit was filed by the workman respondent No. 2 on 30.10.2010 annexing therewith copy of order dated 16.9.2009 passed by Executive Engineer, Madhya Ganga Nahar Nirman Khand-8, Bulandshahr. In the said order it was mentioned that High Court had passed an order on 26.5.2009 directing that the workman must be reinstated and paid Rs. 25,000/-. In the said order it is also mentioned that Rs. 1,20,000/- had already been deposited with the labour Court. It was further mentioned that as the workman had agreed for accepting Rs. In the said order it was mentioned that High Court had passed an order on 26.5.2009 directing that the workman must be reinstated and paid Rs. 25,000/-. In the said order it is also mentioned that Rs. 1,20,000/- had already been deposited with the labour Court. It was further mentioned that as the workman had agreed for accepting Rs. 1,45,000/- as back wages and for being reinstated, hence in accordance with the High Court’s order, the said prayer should be accepted. The letter was written by Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer. 11. Firstly, the fact that Rs. 1,20,000/- had been deposited was not brought to the notice of the Court on 26.5.2009. Secondly, there was no such direction in the said order that petitioner should be reinstated. It was suggested that if both the parties agreed, then Rs. 25000/- might be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement with back wages as had been directed by the impugned award. 12. The explanation of the Executive Engineer concerned, i.e. Vinod Kumar Goel that his clerk wrote the letter dated 16.9.2009 and he simply signed that, is further alarming. If such an important matter is totally left upon the clerk, then there is no need of any Executive Engineer. The clerk concerned can perform the other duties of the Executive Engineer also. Writing of memorandum pursuant to the order of the High Court is not a job which may completely be left upon the clerk. One thing is quite clear i.e. either the Executive Engineer or the concerned clerk or both of them were in collusion with the workman. Even if the Executive Engineer was not in collusion with the workman, he was utterly negligent. Holder of such an important post cannot be permitted to be so negligent. 13. As far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, he is behaving in an utterly dishonest manner. He received the amount of Rs. 25000/- and is further asserting that he must be reinstated. As per order dated 26.5.2009, workman was entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/- provided that he agreed for not enforcing the award. He did not return the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 14. In any case, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. The impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to pay Rs. 75000/- to the workman respondent No. 2. Rs. 25,000/- have already been paid. 25,000/- provided that he agreed for not enforcing the award. He did not return the amount of Rs. 25,000/-. 14. In any case, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. The impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to pay Rs. 75000/- to the workman respondent No. 2. Rs. 25,000/- have already been paid. Out of the deposited amount of Rs. 1,20,000/-, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the workman and remaining amount of Rs. 70,000/- shall be returned to the petitioner. An adverse entry shall be made in the character roll of the Executive Engineer, Vinod Kumar Goel to the effect that “while passing/signing order dated 16.9.2009 for reinstatement of Madan Pal Singh, respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 31539 of 1991 he acted against the interest of the State and in utter disregard of order dated 26.5.2009 passed in the said writ petition.” —————