JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved of the award dated 15th March, 2004; the State petitioners have instituted the writ proceedings with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the skeletal material facts essential for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the respondent-workman (Late Shri Har Chandi - deceased), was engaged on 1st January, 1987; on daily wages basis. His services were terminated on 20th September, 1988, without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). On an industrial dispute raised by the respondent-workman, the Labour Court, Bharatpur, on a consideration of statement of claim, response filed on behalf of the petitioner-employer, evidence adduced by the parties and materials available on record; answered the reference in negative and in favour of the deceased workman with a direction for re in statement along with 25% of back wages and continuity of service. 3. Learned counsel for the State-petitioners/employer, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, asserted that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages basis. It is further contended that his services were neither terminated nor he was removed rather he voluntarily left/abandoned the employment. Moreover, the respondent workman was engaged in the Drought Relief Scheme. Further, having regard to the short duration of his engagement; the direction issued by the Labour Court for reinstatement with continuity of service as well as back wages to the extent of 25%; is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the materials available on record. 4. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court lost sight of the important aspect of the matter for the respondent-workman, who voluntarily abandoned the employment was engaged on daily wages basis and he did not undergo any recruitment process in accordance with any statutory recruitment rules, and therefore, there was no violation of any of the provisions of Section 25-F, 25G and/or 25H of the Act of 1947. In the alternative, learned counsel relying upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. In the alternative, learned counsel relying upon the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 emphasised that the Labour Court failed to exercise the judicial discretion while making an award for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of back wages as in such matters, pecuniary compensation is the proper relief. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the legal heirs of the respondent-workman (deceased), while supporting the impugned award passed by the Labour court, contended that the findings arrived at and the conclusion drawn on a proper analysis of the facts and appreciation of the evidence by the Labour Court, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, an award made by the Labour Court/Tribunal may be interfered with only wherein the award suffers with perversity or a finding based on no evidence, which is not the case at hand. However, it is contended that since the respondent-workman died on 23rd April, 2005, therefore, the relief of reinstatement has become in fructuous, but the legal heirs deserve to be compensated by adequate monitory benefits. Reliance has been placed on the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 . 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 7. It is pleaded case of the State-petitioners that the respondent-workman (deceased) himself abandoned the employment, and therefore, the findings as well as conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court suffered with manifest illegality. On a consideration of the pleaded facts of the statement of claim, response filed on behalf of the State-petitioners before the Labour Court and materials available on record, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be construed to be findings based on no evidence or suffered with any perversity. From the details of the engagement of the respondent-workman (deceased), the Labour Court concluded that he worked for two hundred fifty one and half days. From the details of the engagement of the respondent-workman (deceased), the Labour Court concluded that he worked for two hundred fifty one and half days. If the Public Holidays and Sundays were to be added to the number of days determined, the total will stand enhanced. Thus, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court for the respondent workman (deceased) was in employment of the State-petitioners for more than 240 days within a calender year preceding termination of his employment, suffers with no illegality or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the issue whether termination of service without compliance of mandate of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 by itself entails reinstatement with full back wages as a matter of right? On a consideration of several earlier opinions and recent trend as well as the opinion of the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in cases where the workman had worked on daily wages basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327 ; which has been relied upon in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. (supra). At this juncture, it would be relevant to consider the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra), which reads thus:- "20. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to two judgements wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In the case of BSNL v. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 , this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In the case of Incharge Officer and Anr. In the case of BSNL v. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 , this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In the case of Incharge Officer and Anr. v. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 , it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In this judgement of Shankar Shetty (supra), this trend was reiterated by referring to various judgements, as is clear from the following discussion: Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act"? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327 , delivering the judgement of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 , Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 , State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575, M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748 , Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75 , Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684 , GDA v. Ashok Kumar: (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC PP. 330 & 335 paras 7 & 14) It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decision 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. 330 & 335 paras 7 & 14) It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decision 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. 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, 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. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, (2010) 6 SCC 773 , wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para 11) 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. 21. In the case of Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402 the Court emphasised that automatic direction for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages is not contemplated. He was at best entitled to one months' pay in lieu of one month's notice and wages of 15 days of each completed year of service as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He was at best entitled to one months' pay in lieu of one month's notice and wages of 15 days of each completed year of service as envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He could not have been directed to be regularised in service or granted/given a temporary status. Such a scheme has been held to be unconstitutional by this Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies, (2004) 7 SCC 112 and Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 22. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that likewise, even when reinstatement was ordered, it does not automatically follow full back wages should be directed to be paid to the workman. He drew our attention of this Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 and Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan, (2009) 9 SCC 601 . 23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgements that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practise etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25Fof the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 24. Reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation (See: State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 ). Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. 25. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground it was resorted to as unfair labour practise or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the concerned workman terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied." 9. In the instant case at hand, the respondent-workman (deceased), was engaged on 1st January, 1987; and his employment was put to an end on 20th September, 1988. Thus, having regard to the period of engagement and the fact that the employment on daily wages was put to an end on 20th September, 1988; the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. Thus, having regard to the period of engagement and the fact that the employment on daily wages was put to an end on 20th September, 1988; the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court, in the singular facts of the case at hand, suffers with serious infirmity and cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 15th March, 2004; directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman (deceased), with continuity of service and 25% back wages, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In the opinion of this Court, a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees : Seventy Five Thousands Only), by the State-petitioners to the legal heirs of the respondent-workman (deceased), would meet the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the State-petitioners are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees : Seventy Five Thousands Only), as compensation to the legal heirs of the respondent-workman (deceased), within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum. 12. The writ application is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. 13. In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed. 14. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition party allowed. *******