JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition by the employer is directed against award dated 19.2.1997 by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV), U.P. Agra in Adjucation Case No. 15 of 1988. The matter which was referred to the labour Court was as to whether action of petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman respondent No. 2, Smt. Lila Devi w.e.f. 28.8.1986 was just and valid or not. The workman contended that she was continuously working from 1.5.1983 till 17.8.1986 and that since 18.8.1986 due to illness she was not going on duty after recovery, she intended to join on 25.8.1986 but she was orally told that she was no more required to work. The case of the employer petitioner was that since 18.8.1986 respondent No. 2 was absent unauthorisedly and that her behaviour was unruly, she abused and threatened and levelled indecent charges against the managed and even though she was required to join the duties, however she failed to do so and her services were terminated on 29.9.1986. 3. Admittedly, no retrenchment compensation was paid to respondent No. 2 and no inquiry was held. Regarding inquiry the employer pleaded that holding inquiry would have been detrimental as it would have resulted in indecent charges by the respondent No. 2 against the Manager. Labour Court held that the employer continuously wrote to respondent No. 2 to join but she did not come on work. Ultimately, termination was held illegal on the ground that no retrenchment compensation as directed to be paid by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had been paid. Accordingly, reinstatement with full back wages was directed. 4. It is not clear that why matter remained pending from 1988 to 1997. In this writ petition through interim order dated 29.1.1998 execution of the impugned award was completely stayed. 5. Written statement filed by the petitioner employer before the labour Court is Annexure-2 to the writ petition stating that services were not terminated on 25.8.1986 but on 29.9.1986. It was admitted that respondent No. 2 was employed w.e.f. 1.5.1983 as helper. In the written statement exchange of letters between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been mentioned. It is also mentioned that on 17.9.1986, respondent No. 2 quarrelled with Sri R.K. Sharma, manager of petitioner and abused him. It was admitted that respondent No. 2 was employed w.e.f. 1.5.1983 as helper. In the written statement exchange of letters between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 has been mentioned. It is also mentioned that on 17.9.1986, respondent No. 2 quarrelled with Sri R.K. Sharma, manager of petitioner and abused him. It is also stated that she was not reporting on duty but she was coming to the factory and using filthy language. It is mentioned that management had lost confidence in her. It is also stated that retrenchment compensation was sent through money order, which was refused. Thereafter, subsequent letters of respondent No. 2 to City Magistrate and other authorities have been mentioned. 6. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is the written statement of respondent No. 2. In para-6 of the written statement, respondent No. 2 mentioned that she sent notice on 29.9.1986 to the employer for sitting on dharna w.e.f. 30.10.1986 and another letter was sent to the administrative authority of the district on 6.10.1986 for permission to sit on dharna on 15.10.1986, which was not granted to her. In para-10 of the written statement she admitted that she was sent a money order of Rs. 1473.25, however she refused to accept the same as it was short by Rs. 82/- and this fact was admitted by the employers themselves as afterwards on 30.9.1986 they informed her that due to fault of the clerk, the amount which was earlier sent was short by Rs. 82/- which was again being sent. 7. Admittedly no inquiry was held. Some amount was sent as retrenchment compensation. There is no finding by the labour Court that whether it was complete as alleged by the employers or incomplete as alleged by the respondent No. 2 on the ground of which she refused to accept the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it was a case of loss of confidence. However the said point is not fully established and in any case confidence may be lost on the ground of some proven facts. Without inquiry it cannot be said that anything was proved. 8. Respondent No. 2 admits that some amount was sent through money order which she refused, however she has asserted that she was justified in refusing the same as it was short. 9. Without inquiry it cannot be said that anything was proved. 8. Respondent No. 2 admits that some amount was sent through money order which she refused, however she has asserted that she was justified in refusing the same as it was short. 9. From the allegations made in the written statements by both the parties against each other, it is quite clear that it was a case of distrust of each other against each other. The relationship was more than strained or irretrievably broken. Accordingly, it was not congenial for any of the parties to direct reinstatement. In such situation, the best course would be to award reasonable compensation/damages to the workman. Supreme Court in several authorities has held that in case of violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act (equivalent to Section 6-N of U.P. I.D. Act), it is not always necessary to direct reinstatement with full back wages in some suitable cases award of consolidated damages/compensation may be the most appropriate relief. In this regard, reference may be made to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 2010 SC 2140 , which are quoted below: “6. In 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, (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and another v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 ; State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748 ; Sita Ram and others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75 ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai and another, (2006) 11 SCC 684 ; Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another, (2008) 1 SCC 575 ). 7. 7. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327 , the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated: “7. 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. * * * * * * * * * * 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 25-F 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 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”. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the workmen (respondent Nos. 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.” 10. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the workmen (respondent Nos. 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.” 10. Even though this principle of award of consolidated damages/compensation is mainly resorted to in case of daily wagers engaged by Government or Governmental agencies however there is no reason for not applying the same principle to private employers and their workmen in suitable cases like the present one. Respondent No. 2 worked for only three years and for 26 years she is not working with the petitioner. In this regard reference may be made to para-5 of AIR 2008 (Supp.) SC 1885, which arose out of a dispute between private employer and its workman. Last part of the para is quoted below: “We are of the opinion that consequent upon the bitter relations between the parties and as even the High Court has found the charges proved though ‘trivial’ and the fact that the respondent has not been on duty with the appellant-management since the year 1981, it would be inappropriate to foist a cantankerous and abrasive workman on it. We accordingly dismiss the appeal but direct that instead of reinstatement the respondent would be entitled to the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation as full and final settlement with respect to his entire claim.” 11. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned award is set aside and substituted by a direction to the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to respondent No. 2 as consolidated damages/compensation within two months from today by depositing the same before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for immediate payment to the respondent No. 2. In case of failure 2% per month interest shall be payable upon the said amount since after two months till actual deposit/recovery. ——————