JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. In W.P(C) No. 11455 of 2006 the petitioner-Management challenges the award dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 116 of 1997 directing reinstatement the workman-opposite party No. 2 in service and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of back wages. In W.P.(C) No. 11222 of 2004 the petitioner-workman prays for setting aside the aforesaid award dated 22nd July, 2004 and to direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay full back wages to him from the date of his termination till reinstatement. In OJC No. 7964 of 1997 the petitioner-workman, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11222 of 2004, prays to regularise his service with back wages and to quash the action taken or contemplated to be taken as per order dated 7.3.1996 issued by the Management. As legal issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, this Court is taken up W.P. (C) No. 11455 of 2006 as a leading case. 2. The facts as narrated in the present writ petition are as follows: The opposite party No.2-workman was initially appointed as an NMR Electrical Helper with effect from 1.3.1988 under Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation, Sub-Division, Bahanaga and continued as such. While the workman was continuing in his post, on 1.1.1989 the management without any rhyme or reason illegally terminated him from service, but at the intervention of the Union, he was re-engaged as Casual NMR Worker under the Lift Irrigation, Soro. Thereafter, the management again without any valid reason disengaged him from service with effect from 1.1.1990. Subsequently, he was reengaged under the Lift Irrigation Division, Bhadrak with effect from 1.12.1990 at the intervention of the Union and continued his employment till 10.3.1996 and again terminated by the management with effect from 11.3.1996 without following Section 15-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act"). After termination of the workman opposite party No.2 from service, the Union raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Bhadrak and since the conciliation initiated by the District Labour Officer failed, ultimately the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by the Government in Labour and Employment Department for adjudication. After termination of the workman opposite party No.2 from service, the Union raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Bhadrak and since the conciliation initiated by the District Labour Officer failed, ultimately the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar by the Government in Labour and Employment Department for adjudication. The Labour Court while disposing of the matter observed that action of the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Bhadrak in terminating the services of Sri Santosh Kumar Sahoo, N.M.R. Electrical Helper of Bhandaripokhari Section with effect from 11.3.96 is neither legal nor justified. The workman Sri Sahoo is entitled to be reinstated in service with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- only in lieu of back wages. 3. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner-management is that the appointment of the workman was purely temporary in nature and as there was surplus staff in different divisions and when there was acute shortage of funds for payment of regular wages, the management decided to disengage the surplus NMR workers and the employees who were appointed irregularly during the ban period of the Government. Accordingly, pursuant to the letter No. 9048 dated 7.3.1996 of the Managing Director, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar, the services of the workman was terminated with effect from 11.3.1996. Although the workman was asked to receive the compensation from the management of Assistance Engineer, Lift Irrigation Sub-Division, Bhandaripokhari vide Office Letter No. 161 dated 16.3.1996, the workman neither received the disengagement letter nor the compensation from the management. Accordingly to the management, the workman had not completed five years of continuous service as on 25.8.1994 for which he was disengaged by the management along with other employees. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2-workman filed writ petition before this Court, numbered as OJC No. 7964 of 1997 with a prayer to regularise his service and for payment of back wages, wherein this Court on 10.6.1997 directed that the petitioner shall not be terminated, if he is continuing in service, by which time the opposite party-workman had already been terminated from his service. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated the following two issues, they are: "1. 4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal formulated the following two issues, they are: "1. Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Bhadrak in terminating the services of Sri Santosh Kumar Sahoo, N.M.R. Electrical Helper of Bhandaripokhari Section with effect from 11.1.96 is legal or justified? 2. If not to what relief, the workman is entitled to ?" 5. On the above issues, the Tribunal recorded the findings that a workman as per Section 25-F of the Act is entitled to one month's notice before retrenchment or one month's pay in lieu thereof. It is therefore, abundantly clear that the condition precedent as required under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act has not at all been followed by the management while terminating the services of the workman. Since the rights to livelihood of the workman were deprived of without giving him notice or notice to pay retrenchment compensation in lieu thereof, the action taken by the management is void ab initio. Accordingly, the action taken by the management in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 11.3.1996 is illegal and the workman is entitled to the relief of reinstatement. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the decision of the Government with regard to handing over various L.I. Points of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited to the Water Users Association consisting of local cultivators. The regular employees of OLIC limited could not receive their pay for two years due to financial stringency and the labour Court passed an ex-parte award on hearing the workman only and the agent of the Management was ill on the date of hearing and could not attend the Court. Therefore, an application was filed by the management for setting aside the ex-parte award and for rehearing the I.D. Case, Accordingly, the labour Court set aide the ex-parte order dated 29th January, 2001. However; after hearing both the parties, the labour Court passed the award finally on 22.7.2004. He further submitted that after decision was taken by the Government, the employees, who completed five years of continued service as on 25th August 1994 were to be regularised and other employees, who were irregular appointees were to be disengaged as per the Government decision. However; after hearing both the parties, the labour Court passed the award finally on 22.7.2004. He further submitted that after decision was taken by the Government, the employees, who completed five years of continued service as on 25th August 1994 were to be regularised and other employees, who were irregular appointees were to be disengaged as per the Government decision. Pursuant to the decision of the Govt., the Managing Director, Orissa lift Irrigation Corporation Limited on 7th March, 1996 issued Circular to all Executive Engineers, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited requesting them to issue notice to the workmen and to pay retrenchment compensation and the said fact was also admitted by the workman in the counter filed by him in the present writ petition under Annexure B/1 dated 16.3.1996 which reveals that they refused to receive the same. Therefore, the award dated 22.7.2004 passed by the labour Court, Bhubaneswar need to be interfered with. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2-workman submitted that the labour Court taking into consideration the fact that notice to pay retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice has not been given to the workman in compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act passed the impugned order. He further submitted that Annexure-B/2 which was annexed by the workman reveals that it is a letter prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Lift Irrigation Sub-Division, Bhandaripokhari in support of the management to show that a notice of disengagement including pay in lieu thereof was served on the N.M.R. P.H. and D.L.R.J.E. However, they refused to receive the same. But the said fact has been proved before the Tribunal that such notice was neither given nor afforded along with pay in lieu of notice. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner being not tenable is liable to be rejected as rightly the labour Court has passed award and therefore interference of this Court to the same is not warranted. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the opposite party No. 2-workman was disengaged from service being an N.M.R./D.L.R. Electrical Helper in the process of restructuring the number of employees of the Corporation in pursuance of the decision of the State Government. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the opposite party No. 2-workman was disengaged from service being an N.M.R./D.L.R. Electrical Helper in the process of restructuring the number of employees of the Corporation in pursuance of the decision of the State Government. Earlier writ petition i.e. OJC No. 2353 of 1996 (Sri P. Prasad Rao and others v. State of Orissa and others) was disposed of on 3.7.1996 by this Court wherein it is held as follows: "We make it clear that we dispose of the present writ application with the observation and direction that notwithstanding the communication made by the Managing Director on 7.3.1996 or any step taken by the Executive Engineers pursuant to such communication of the Managing Director proper steps should be taken if necessary to terminate the service of the NMR employees individually by giving proper opportunity of defence and no termination will take place save under due process of law and if there is already termination on that score the same should be deemed to be quashed and they are to be deemed to, be continuing as such." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the above, the disengagement notice issued by the petitioner-management on 7th March, 1996 to the workman as held by the Tribunal is illegal, unreasonable as Section 25-F of the I.D. Act has not been complied with. The Apex Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others (SC) 1990 (61) FLR 768 held that the right to life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individual in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them. 10. The apex Court in the case of Asst. Engineer Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & anr. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be a mockery of them. 10. The apex Court in the case of Asst. Engineer Rajasthan Dev. Corp. & anr. v. Gitam Singh reported in 2013 LLR 225 has held that when the termination of a workman is held illegal, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the Supreme Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of the Court that there could be circumstance (s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Hence, the normal rule that the dismissed workman is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. The principles as relevant for granting relief of reinstatement when termination of workman is held to be illegal. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointmei1t, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute. Now there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with backwages, and instead the Labour Court can award compensation. The apex Court further held that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement, should have been proper to a daily wager who has completed merely 240 days' service hence the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering that the reinstatement with back-wages is no longer a rule without exceptions. While granting a relief of reinstatement to a workman whose termination is held to be illegal, i.e. violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination was been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute. 11. 11. In view of the above settled position of law, even though normal rule is reinstatement of workman in case of wrongful dismissal, the Court, keeping in view all relevant factors including nature of employment, length of service and the ground on which termination has been set aside, can award compensation in stead of reinstatement with back wages. 12. Accordingly, this Court modifies the impugned award dated 22nd July, 2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 116 of 1997. Since the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Executive Engineer, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd., Lift Irrigation Division, Bhadrak-Management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the workman, namely, Santosh Kumar Sahoo as compensation within a period of six weeks from today. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Petition disposed of.