JUDGMENT 1. - Instant intra court appeal has been preferred against order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 24.2.2015. 2. The relevant material facts necessary for our consideration are that the present respondent workmen were engaged on daily wage basis in different years in the year 1979 to 1987 and the period of commencement of their appointment and period of service which each of them has rendered is submitted in the tabular form which reads ad infra- 1.Smt. Jamna : May 1979 13 years 2.Smt. Sayri : March 1983 (dead) 9 years 3.Smt. Fumli : March 1983 (dead) 9 years 4.Smt. Rafiqa : January 1985 (dead) 7 years 5.Smt. Bundunisha : June 1986 6 years 6.Smt. Surma : November 1986 5 years 7.Gopal : 1st May, 1987 4-1/2 years 3. However, the services of the workmen were terminated/dispensed with from 27.9.1991. A joint dispute was raised initially by approaching to the Conciliation Officer and after failure report was furnished, the State Govt. vide its notification dated 26.3.1997 referred the dispute to the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. We consider appropriate to quote the reference made for adjudication which reads ad infra- " D;k fu;kstd eaMy ou vf/kdkjh ou Hkou t;iqj jksM+] vtesj }kjk muds Jfedx.k ( 1 ) xksiky iq= Jh fd'kuyky] Jhefr lk;jh iRuh lqHkku cksgkj] Jhefr jQhdk iRuh Jh lqYrku] Jhefr cqUnqfu'kk iRuh Jh lqyseku] Jhefr Qweyh iRuh Jh lqok Hkkach] Jhefr lqjek iRuh Jh NksVw [kka] Jhefr teuk iRuh Jh txnh'k uk;d dks fnukad 27-9-91 ls lsok i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfedx.k fdl jkgr dks izkIr djus ds vf/kdkj gS\ " 4. The claim application was filed by the respondent workmen and in support of defence, the appellant filed their written statement and after due appreciation of pleadings on record, the ld. Labour Court arrived to the conclusion that there was non compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Act 1947). At the same time, since number of employees who were later on appointed were regularised and respondent workmen were able to prove their case from the material on record, the Ld. Labour Court arrived to the conclusion that there was non compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (Act 1947). At the same time, since number of employees who were later on appointed were regularised and respondent workmen were able to prove their case from the material on record, the Ld. Labour Court under its impugned award dated 4.6.2006 also observed that there was a violation of Section 25F & 25G of the Act 1947 and finally answered the reference while holding that the termination of the respondent workmen from service from 27.9.1991 was illegal and unjustified and since by that time two of the workmen Sayri and Fumli died during pendency of proceedings and their legal representatives were brought on record, the appellant State was directed to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service with full back wages and as regards to the respondents who died during pendency of proceedings, their legal representatives are made entitled for salary and other allowances upto the date of death of workmen, and that has compelled the appellant to approach this Court by filing writ petition. 5. During pendency of proceedings, the Ld. Single Judge of this Court, granted interim protection and the award to the extent of awarding back wages was stayed vide order dated 6.8.2007 and we notice that the Ld. Single Judge has not stayed the award in respect of reinstatement but the fact remains that the appellant because of pendency of writ petition failed to reinstate either of the respondent workmen, however, when the matter came up before the Ld. Single Judge on 19.5.2014, it was directed that let Additional Govt. Counsel may inform this Court as to whether the respondent workmen have been reinstated in service in view of the order dated 6.8.2007 since under its order dated 6.8.2007, the ld. Single Judge stayed the operation of the impugned award only to the extent of back wages. The Govt. counsel informed this Court that either of the respondent workmen has not been reinstated in service and on explanation, it was informed by the appellant that the respondent workmen could not be reinstated since Finance Department did not agree to the proposal for reinstatement. 6. The Govt. counsel informed this Court that either of the respondent workmen has not been reinstated in service and on explanation, it was informed by the appellant that the respondent workmen could not be reinstated since Finance Department did not agree to the proposal for reinstatement. 6. At the outset, it may be noticed that it may be the internal correspondence between the department and when there was specific direction for reinstatement of the respondent workmen under impugned award within three months and there was no express order of stay regarding reinstatement, the appellant was under obligation to comply with the award, however, that would certainly remain final outcome of the pending proceedings before the Ld. Single Judge but merely because that was not agreeable to the Finance Department, it was not at all justified for the appellant to withhold reinstatement. 7. Be that as it may. After the matter was heard, the Ld. Single Judge of this Court was of the view that there appears no manifest error in the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court of being violation of Section 25 F & 25G of the Act 1947 and there was no delay on the part of the respondent workmen in approaching and availing remedy provided under the Act 1947 and laches could not be attributed to them and taking note thereof finally arrived to the conclusion that there appears no manifest error being committed by the Ld. Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal under impugned award which may call for interference while exercising power u/Art. 226 & 227 of the Constitution and accordingly dismissed the writ petition vide its order dated 24.2.2015 which is subject matter of challenge in the instant intra court appeal. 8. Counsel for appellant submits that the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Ld. 8. Counsel for appellant submits that the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Ld. Single Judge is not in conformity with the record and has tried to persuade this Court that the finding recorded requires re-appreciation at this stage but his main thrust of submission is that even if there was violation of Section 25F & 25G of the Act 1947 and even if this Court may not like to disturb the concurrent finding of fact, but still there could not be reinstatement of the respondent workmen and this Court if consider appropriate may award adequate compensation to the respondent workmen in lieu of reinstatement and has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2013(5) SCC 136 Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation And Another v. Gitam Singh & Anr and in 2014 (7) SCC 177 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhuramal and his bone of contention is that for the service rendered by the respondent employee keeping in view the test which the Apex Court has laid down, this Court may consider to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement as they are not the regular employees and terminated from service in September 1991 and when they had not worked on the sanctioned post and their employment was not in conformity of Article 14 of the Constitution and were not regularly appointed and as such the award & the order impugned passed by the Ld. Single Judge regarding reinstatement require interference by this Court.On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the submission made in respect of compensation in lieu of reinstatement which has been examined by the Ld. Single Judge under order impugned and may not call for interference. 9. As regards merits of the matter is concerned that has been examined by the Ld. Labour Court & confirmed by the Ld. Single Judge under order impugned dated 24.2.2015, we do not find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant which may require interference at least in court of appeal. 10. 9. As regards merits of the matter is concerned that has been examined by the Ld. Labour Court & confirmed by the Ld. Single Judge under order impugned dated 24.2.2015, we do not find substance in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant which may require interference at least in court of appeal. 10. The judgment on which counsel for appellant placed reliance where the Apex Court has considered to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the case reported in 2013(5) SCC 136 and we find from the judgment that the workman had worked as technician (mistry) for the period 1.3.1991 to 31.10.1991 and had worked for 240 days and keeping in view the mandate of Section 25F of the Act 1947, the Apex Court has arrived to the conclusion that there was violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947 but looking to the fact that they had worked for 240 days only, considered appropriate in the given facts & circumstances to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Even in the later judgment reported in 2014(7) SCC 177 , the Apex Court took note of earlier judgment reported in 2013(5) SCC 136 and observed that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically and the facts of each case has to be looked into, however, in some cases where termination of daily wage worker where termination has been found to be illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25F of the Act 1947, reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. At the same time, the Apex Court also observed that in case where the person junior to him regularised under some policy and the workman concerned has been terminated, he should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement and we consider appropriate to quote para 33, 34 & 35 of 2014(7) SCC 177 which reads ad infra- 33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments 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. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments 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 malafide and/or by way of victimisation, 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 25F of 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. 34. 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 non-payment 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. 35. 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 practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. 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 practice 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. 11. In the instant case, the respondent workmen had worked for the period 1979 to 1987 and few of them died during pendency of proceedings and after their termination from employment w.e.f. 27.9.1991 each of them proceeded to avail remedy provided to them under the law and after the reference was made, the matter was adjudicated and award dated 4.5.2006 came to be passed by the Ld. Labour Court holding that there is a violation of Section 25F & 25G of the Act 1947 and has been confirmed by the Ld. Single Judge after due appreciation of material on record and if there is no delay on the part of the respondent in availing remedy provided under the law at least laches cannot be attributed to them and mere delay because of long pendency of the matter in this Court, cannot be attributed to the respondent workmen and after the finding of fact of being in violation of Section 25F & 25G of the Act 1947 stands concluded, in our considered view, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court of which we have made reference, we are of the view that what is being considered by the Ld. Single Judge under order impugned may not call for our interference. 12. Consequently, the appeal is without substance and accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******