Order Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the employer calling in question the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 16682 of 2014. Respondent No. 2 employee was working as a daily-wager with the appellant Agriculture Produce Market Committee. It is undisputed that he discharged duties as such from the year 1999 right till 1.12.2005. According to the employee, on 1.12.2005 his services were illegally terminated without following any procedure. On the same day, he complained to the Labour Commissioner stating that since he had asked for regularization, his service was illegally terminated. The appellant appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and stated by communication dated 18.1.2006 that the employee had voluntarily left the service. Presently, the Market Committee does not require his service. However, in future whenever the need arises, he will be given an opportunity looking to his seniority. Eventually, the dispute about the illegal termination of the employee was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, Palanpur, partially allowed the reference by the judgment and award dated 6.8.2014. The termination of the employee was declared as illegal. The Market Committee was directed to reinstate him with continuity of service. Regarding backwages, a passing reference was made to the fact that the employee had not shown any interest in expeditious disposal of the reference and that therefore he would be entitled to only 25% backwages. This award was challenged by the Market Committee by filing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, dismissed the same observing that the petition fell within the purview of Article227 of the Constitution and further that there was no illegality in the view of the Labour Court. It is against this judgment of the learned Single Judge that the Market Committee has filed this appeal. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the materials on record, we are prepared to proceed on the basis that the petition of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee was not confined to one under Article 227 of the Constitution but also under Article 226 of the Constitution. Resultantly, we do not propose to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. The question, however is whether any interference is called for. 3. We have perused the judgment of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, we do not propose to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. The question, however is whether any interference is called for. 3. We have perused the judgment of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge. From the outset, the workman had contended that having worked for more than six years continuously, his service was illegally terminated without following any procedure whatsoever. Admittedly, no notice or notice pay was offered nor retrenchment compensation paid to him. Thus, if this was a case of termination of service, as asserted by the workman, the same was certainly opposed to the mandatory requirements of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court considered the defence of the employer at length and found that there was nothing on record to suggest that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the work. These findings are well supported by the evidence on record. Additionally, we notice that the workman had approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner immediately upon his service being terminated. Further, the employer had never written any communication calling upon the workman to resume his duty or to face any adverse consequences. Even in the communication dated 18.1.2006, while asserting that the workman had stopped coming for work, it was conveyed that his services are presently not required. This would betray the stand of the employer that the services of the workmen were not terminated. In view of such overwhelming facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to upset the findings of the Labour Court duly approved by the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel Shri Patel, however, vehemently contended that even if the termination of the workman was held to be illegal, the only recourse before the Labour Court was to award compensation and not direct reinstatement and at any rate award back-wages. In this respect, he placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal, AIR 2014 SC 1188 : (2014) 7 SCC 177 : LNIND 2013 SC 1065. In the said decision, the Supreme Court highlighted the changing trend that mere declaration of illegality of termination order on the ground of non-fulfillment of requirements of section 25 and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not ipso facto result into reinstatement with full backwages. In the said decision, the Supreme Court highlighted the changing trend that mere declaration of illegality of termination order on the ground of non-fulfillment of requirements of section 25 and other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not ipso facto result into reinstatement with full backwages. Many factors were pointed to make a departure from this previously held legal belief. It was pointed out that when the workman has put in a short period of work and is otherwise engaged on daily wages, reinstatement with backwages after a long period would cause injustice. It was also pointed out that even after reinstatement, the employer can always resort to fresh termination after following legal requirements. 5. What should be the consequential order upon a termination order being declared illegal in view of not following statutory mandatory requirements of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act and other provisions would essentially depend on facts of each case. We do not see any inviolable proposition being laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal (supra) that in every case wherever termination of an employee is being brought about in violation of section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, monetary compensation alone can be awarded. 6. In the case of Deepali Gandu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : LNIND 2013 SC 800, a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred to and relied upon a three Judge Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, AIR 1979 SC 75 : (1979) 2 SCC 80 : LNIND 1978 SC 227 : 1978-II-LLJ-474, in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, AIR 1981 SC 422 : (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981-I-LLJ-386 and in the case of P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research v. Raj Kumar, AIR 2001 SC 479 : (2001) 2 SCC 54 : LNIND 2000 SC 1410 : 2001-I-LLJ-546, and observed as under: "22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments." 7. Referring to the facts of this case, we have already upheld the declaration of the Labour Court that the workman was terminated by the employer and it was not a case of voluntary abandonment of service and that such termination was brought about without following the legal requirements particularly those flowing from section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Looking to the length of service and awarding of 25% backwages, we do not see this being a case where any modification or interference would be necessary. Looking to the length of service and awarding of 25% backwages, we do not see this being a case where any modification or interference would be necessary. The observation of the Labour Court that the workman did not show interest in early disposal of the reference cannot be seen in isolation. Even the appellant has not brought on record any details to demonstrate that he deliberately delayed the proceedings in order to earn idle wages. Merely because he did not take active steps to urge the court to take up the reference out of turn for expeditious disposal by itself cannot under any circumstances result into withholding of any further backwages than 75% of the backwages which he has already suffered. The view of the Labour Court was considered and approved by the learned Single Judge. We may record that on 19.12.2014, before a Division Bench, the counsel for the employer had clarified that the employer is ready to reinstate the workman and that the appellant confines the appeal only on the question of backwages. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Civil Application for stay is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.