Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:— 1. This is second round of litigation, in which respondent No. 2 – workman has been dragged by the appellant – bank. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by United Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as Rs.the appellant – management'), challenging the order dated 5.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 14670 of 2006 filed by the appellant – management for setting aside the award dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Labour Court, Chandigarh, ordering re-instaement of the respondent – workman without back wages, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent – workman was engaged by the appellant – management as a Driver on daily wages on 11.6.1991. He continuously worked as such upto 21.10.1994. Suddenly, on 21.10.1994, his services were terminated, without complying with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.the Act'), as retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman. The respondent – workman raised industrial dispute by issuing demand notice. Vide award dated 7.9.2001 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Labour Court, termination of the services of the respondent – workman was held to be illegal and unjustified as made in gross violation of the Section 25-F of the Act. He was ordered to be re-instated without back wages, but with continuity of service. While deciding the said reference, it was also observed by the Labour Court that the management will be free to dispense with the services of the workman, after complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Act. It is further undisputed fact that after the said award, the workman was taken back in service on 17.1.2002 and on the same day, his services were again dispensed with, by passing the following order : “We have to inform you that you were engaged on daily wage basis during the period 11.6.91 to 21.10.94 and now no post of Driver exists at our branch, therefore, your services are dispensed with, with immediate effect i. e. 17.1.2002. ” The respondent – workman, thinking that the said order was totally illegal and unjust, challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 3782 of 2002. ” The respondent – workman, thinking that the said order was totally illegal and unjust, challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 3782 of 2002. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant – management paid wages for the period from 7.9.2001 (the date of award) to 17.1.2002 (the date of termination of the services of the respondent – workman for the second time). Since while passing the order of second termination, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with, this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated March 1, 2004 (Annexure P-3) gave liberty to the respondent – workman to assail the said order of termination of his services by seeking a reference under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the respondent – workman again issued demand notice and got the matter referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication. 4. Vide award dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure P-4), the Labour Court again found that termination of the services of the respondent – workman for the second time was illegal and unjustified, as before terminating the services of the respondent – workman, the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act was not complied with. After holding the termination of the services of the respondent – workman as illegal and unjustified, the Labour Court again ordered his re-instatement, but without any back wages, as it was found that during the period of his termination, he was in gainful employment. However, it was ordered that in view of the fact that termination of the services of the respondent – workman was illegal and unjustified, the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service of the management till date. He was also held entitled to all the benefits, except the monetary benefits due to him under the rules, as if he had been in the service of the management all through this period. 5. The management challenged the said award by filing CWP No. 14670 of 2006, which was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-, vide the impugned order, while observing as under : “Along with the other, the workman was also offered a month’s wages but did not provide for a computation of compensation in the manner set forth under Section 25-F. The Labour Court found that there had been no due compliance of Section 25-F and directed reinstatement. 5,000/-, vide the impugned order, while observing as under : “Along with the other, the workman was also offered a month’s wages but did not provide for a computation of compensation in the manner set forth under Section 25-F. The Labour Court found that there had been no due compliance of Section 25-F and directed reinstatement. The attempt of the learned counsel from the Bank before this Court was, therefore, to show that the dispensation of service which they had made was as per the liberty granted to them by the Labour Court in its award dated 07.09.2001. In my view, the manner of termination of services is on account of improper understanding of the effect of the award passed by the Labour Court on 07.09.2001. When it was setting aside the order of termination earlier made and providing for continuity of service, the fresh order of termination ought to have taken the service that commenced on 11.06.1991 till the date when it chose to pass a fresh order of termination as the period when the workman was in service. The compensation under Section 25-F ought to have, therefore, allowed for computation of the entire period from 11.06.1991 to 17.01.2002 as the period when he was in service and provided for 15 days salary for each year of such service. The liberty that the Court granted would be illusory to a workman and the award of the Labour Court itself would be rendered nugatory if an interpretation were to be cast that it could dispense with the services of the workman anyway, even without providing for compensation. It is also meaningless to give such an interpretation for the award itself states that the termination shall be made in the manner provided under Section 25-F. The order passed on 17.01.2002 without due computation of the wages for the number of years that he served, was clearly wrong and illegal. The Labour Court had entered a correct finding on the same and had while setting aside the impugned order of termination directed reinstatement. ” Before the learned Single Judge, an argument was raised that since the vacancy of Driver was not available with the appellant – management, therefore, instead of re-instating, the respondent – workman should be awarded compensation. The Labour Court had entered a correct finding on the same and had while setting aside the impugned order of termination directed reinstatement. ” Before the learned Single Judge, an argument was raised that since the vacancy of Driver was not available with the appellant – management, therefore, instead of re-instating, the respondent – workman should be awarded compensation. This contention was rejected, as it was found that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant – management had advertised the posts of Drivers, therefore, it cannot be said that no post of Driver was available with the appellant – management. 6. On March 22, 2010, this Letters Patent Appeal was admitted and operation of the impugned judgment was stayed, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant – management to the respondent – workman. Subsequently, vide order dated October 4, 2010, passed in CM No. 2426- LPA of 2010, the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be adjusted in making payment under Section 17-B of the Act. On that statement, the application filed by the respondent – workman for complying with the provision of Section 17-B of the Act was disposed of. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. 8. Undisputedly, the earlier award passed by the Labour Court on 7.9.2001 was not challenged by the appellant - management. According to the said award, the respondent – workman was deemed to be in continuous service of the appellant – management from 11.6.1991 to 7.9.2001. According to the said award, the respondent – workman was to be reinstated without back wages, but it was ordered that he will be deemed to be in continuous service. In pursuance of the said award, the respondent – workman submitted his joining report on 17.1.2002 and the appellant – management, instead of allowing him to join his duties, dispensed with his services vide order dated 17.1.2002, on the ground that no post of Driver existed at their branch. It was found by the Labour Court that the amount in lieu of one month's notice was paid to the respondent – workman, but no retrenchment compensation was paid. It was found by the Labour Court that the amount in lieu of one month's notice was paid to the respondent – workman, but no retrenchment compensation was paid. Keeping in view this fact, the Labour Court again decided the reference in favour of the respondent – workman, and termination of his services was held to be illegal and unjustified, being in violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F of the Act. This Section lays down two condition precedents for retrenching a workman, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer, i. e. (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; and (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. These two conditions are mandatory to be followed by the management before retrenching a workman, who continuously worked for more than one year under an employer. Undisputedly, in this case, the second condition of awarding retrenchment compensation has not been complied with. In view of this fact, the Labour Court has rightly declared the second termination of the services of the respondent – workman as illegal and unjustified and ordered his re-instatement without back wages, but with continuity of service. 9. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant – management argued that since the respondent – workman was engaged on daily wages basis, therefore, instead of re-instating, he should be awarded reasonable compensation. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted at all. Before the termination of his services for the first time on 21.10.1994, the respondent – workman had continuously worked for more than three years, i. e. from 11.6.1991 to 21.10.1994, as a Driver with the appellant – management, and on 7.9.2001, after declaring his termination as illegal and unjustified, he was ordered to be re-instated, though without back wages, but with continuity of service. Second time also, vide award dated 12.12.2005, the respondent-workman was ordered to be re-instated, though without back wages, but with continuity of service. Second time also, vide award dated 12.12.2005, the respondent-workman was ordered to be re-instated, though without back wages, but with continuity of service. Thus, from 11.6.1991 to 12.12.2005, he is deemed to be in continuous service of the appellant – management. It has also been found that in spite of availability of the post of Driver, services of the respondent – workman were illegally terminated. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to award compensation to the respondent – workman in lieu of re-instatement. Merely because initially, he was engaged on daily wages basis, he cannot be denied re-instatement. Even otherwise, similar issue came up for consideration before this Court. This Court in L. P. A. No. 1678 of 2011 (The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Panchkula and another Versus Ram Karan and another) and other connected appeals, decided on September 04, 2012, after following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat (Haryana), 2010(3) SLR 663 ; Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584 ; Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (1) SCT 675, has held that if the termination of services of the daily wager is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, he can be ordered to be reinstated with back wages, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be accepted as a Rule that such employee has to be awarded compensation instead of reinstatement. 11. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.