JUDGMENT : Mr. Navin Sinha and Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ. The present appeal arises from order dated 15/07/2014 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7864/2014. The Learned Single Judge held that award of the labour court directing reinstatement of the respondent called for no interference because retrenchment had been done in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the "Act") and it was an admitted fact that persons junior to the respondent had been retained while he was retrenched. 2. Assailing the order under appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was appointed on daily wage on 17/12/1993. His services were dispensed with on 23/05/2002. Being a daily wage, he had no right to the post. The requirement for a daily wage would depend upon the exigency of the work. The appellant cannot be compelled to re-engage a daily wage irrespective of the fact whether there is need or not. If the retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, appropriate relief is to grant compensation only. Whether a person junior to the respondent had been retained while he was retrenched is a question of fact. It was for the respondent to assert this fact specifically. Exhibit W-2 produced by the respondent in support of his plea for unfair labour practise by his retrenchment while retaining juniors and which has been relied upon was not an order reflecting date of appointment or seniority but a simple order of transfer of the concerned. The learned Single Judge erred in concluding on basis of the same that persons junior to the respondent had been retained while he was singled out for retrenchment. Reliance was placed on (2010) 9 SCC 126 (Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty) to submit that at best the respondent may be entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac in lieu of retrenchment. Reliance was further placed on 2013 (136) FLR 908 (Asstt. Engineer Rajasthan Dev. Corp. v. Gitam Singh) that reinstatement ought not to have been ordered and compensation should have been granted in lieu of the same. 3. Counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal submitted that there has been no procedural infirmity in the decision making process by the labour court. Engineer Rajasthan Dev. Corp. v. Gitam Singh) that reinstatement ought not to have been ordered and compensation should have been granted in lieu of the same. 3. Counsel for the respondent opposing the appeal submitted that there has been no procedural infirmity in the decision making process by the labour court. That the respondent had worked over 240 days and there had been violation of Section 25F of the Act while ordering retrenchment is not in dispute. The respondent's contention of unfair labour practise in retaining his juniors while retrenching him has been upheld by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. In any event back-wages have already been denied. The respondent has remained out of service since May 2002 and being approximately 46 years of age today is incapable of securing employment anywhere else. Reliance was placed on (2014) 11 SCC 85 (Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited) in support of the submission that unless the labour court had committed any error in the decision making process, this Court should not interfere. Reliance was further placed on AIR 2015 SC 357 (Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL) Lastly reliance was placed on (2014) 7 SCC 177 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal) for the alternative submission that in case of retrenchment of a daily wager after 2 years in violation of Section 25F of the Act, compensation of Rs.2 lacs was found inadequate enhancing it to Rs.3 lacs, whereas the respondent in the present case had worked for 8½ years. 4. We have considered the submissions of the parties. 5. The fact that the respondent was a daily wage who had worked for 8½ years is not in dispute. A daily wage holds no post and his requirement is dependent on the needs of the employer. The appointment itself is made in the exigency of the work according to the needs of the employer. Whether the employer needs a daily wage or not itself is a question of fact. Merely because the retrenchment may have been in violation of Section 25F of the Act, to direct that a daily wager ipso facto is required to be reinstated and the question whether the employer needs the services of the daily wage or not is irrelevant, can lead to situations where the law may become regressive. Merely because the retrenchment may have been in violation of Section 25F of the Act, to direct that a daily wager ipso facto is required to be reinstated and the question whether the employer needs the services of the daily wage or not is irrelevant, can lead to situations where the law may become regressive. The employer may end up paying a daily wage employee without being able to take any work from him. Justice cannot be done to one in a manner to cause injustice to another. 6. The earlier law indisputably was that if retrenchment was in violation of 25F of the Act, irrespective of all considerations reinstatement had to follow. But the law must keep pace with the changing times and economic compulsions. Therefore there has been a paradigm in judicial pronouncements that whenever a daily wager is retrenched in violation of 25F of the Act reinstatement cannot follow automatically but is an aspect to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case dependent on several factors. 7. Those cases where there is evidence of unfair labour practise when juniors have been retained, violation of 25F may assume dimensions of unfair labour practise in which case reinstatement must necessarily follow. Whether there has been an unfair labour practise by retaining juniors is a question of fact. If the employee makes that assertion, it is for him to prove that fact or at least lay the basic foundation for the same and failure of the employer to reply may invite adverse inference. There is no material on record to uphold the finding of unfair labour practise by the appellant being an admitted fact. The only evidence in support of the same was Exhibit W-2 filed by the respondent and which was merely a list of persons transferred. It does not contain any date of appointment and is not a seniority list. 8. The respondent was never appointed in accordance with law in compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution. No appointment letter was issued to him. The person appointing him was not competent to do so. Precedents abound that reinstatement now need not be ordered as routine in case of retrenchment in violation of 25F of the Act. Reference may be made to Bhuramal (supra) which also related to a daily wage retrenched observing as follows :- "31. In Deptt. The person appointing him was not competent to do so. Precedents abound that reinstatement now need not be ordered as routine in case of retrenchment in violation of 25F of the Act. Reference may be made to Bhuramal (supra) which also related to a daily wage retrenched observing as follows :- "31. In Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb 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 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act....." 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. 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 25-F 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. The 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 25-F 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. Umadevi(3)]. 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. Umadevi(3)]. 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 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 wee 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 (2014) 7 SCC 190 (Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India) relying on Bhurumal again dealing with retrenchment of a daily wage employee contrary to Section 25F of the Act it was observed as follows:- "18. Admittedly, both the workmen were engaged on daily-wage basis. Their engagement was also in exigency of situation. ......There is a time-lag of 9 years. .....Be that as it may, at this juncture what we are highlighting is that appellant No.1 had worked on daily wages basis for barely 3 years and he is out of service for last 30 years. Even when the Tribunal rendered his award in 1996, 13 years had elapsed since his termination. ......There is a time-lag of 9 years. .....Be that as it may, at this juncture what we are highlighting is that appellant No.1 had worked on daily wages basis for barely 3 years and he is out of service for last 30 years. Even when the Tribunal rendered his award in 1996, 13 years had elapsed since his termination. On these facts, it would be difficult to give the relief of reinstatement to the persons who were engaged as daily wagers and whose services were terminated in a distant past. And, further where termination is held to be illegal only on a technical ground of not adhering to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Law on this aspect, as developed over a period of time by series of judgments makes the aforesaid legal position very eloquent. It is not necessary to traverse through all these judgments. Our purpose would be served by referring to a recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal which has taken note of the earlier case law relevant to the issue." 10. In Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi (supra) relied upon by the respondent, the appellant was not a daily wager but a Labour Supervisor in the factory. The consideration for a person in a permanent employment dispensed with in violation of the provisions of the Act is entirely a different matter and has no application in its ratio to retrenchment of a daily wager. 11. Reliance by the appellant on Shankar Shetty that for more one years, Rs.1 lac should be awarded as compensation is distinguishable on its own facts that employee had worked intermittently for 7 years and that the matter was 25 years old which is not the case present. 12. That in case of violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, appropriate relief to be granted was compensation and not reinstatement was considered in the context of "ticca majdoors" by a three judge bench in Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani : (2005) 5 SCC 100 and it was observed as follows:- "50. In law, 240 days of continuous service by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence. Section 25-F provides for grant of compensation if a workman is sought to be retrenched in violation of the conditions referred to therein. (See Maharashtra State Coop. In law, 240 days of continuous service by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence. Section 25-F provides for grant of compensation if a workman is sought to be retrenched in violation of the conditions referred to therein. (See Maharashtra State Coop. Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. See also Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra)." 13. In Tapash Kumar Paul, the only question was with regard to denial of back wages while ordering retrenchment due to violation of Section 25F of the Act. The reference under Section 10 in the present case was made on was made to 23.3.2004, two years after retrenchment. The award has been pronounced on 24/02/2014. If the respondent is not answerable for the delay, there is no material to hold that the appellant is answerable for the same. Fourteen years have gone by since retrenchment. Regular appointment may have been made by now or the services of a daily wage may not be required. There are no facts with regard to the same but with the passage of time the Court cannot gloss over the same while considering grant of appropriate relief. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that in Bhurumal (supra) a compensation of Rs.2 lacs was awarded for the service of a little over 2 years and the respondent herein had worked for 8½ years, we consider it proper to grant him compensation of Rs.3 lacs. He has already been paid the last wages during the pendency of the matter before this Court. 14. The compensation shall be paid to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the registrar of the University failing which it shall carry interest at the bank rate till date of payment. 15. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.