JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Pt. S.Chandra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the records. 2. This writ petition was filed in the year 1993, challenging the award given in favour of the workman/opposite party no.2 vide impugned order dated 29.3.1993. 3. Mr.M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that? in the matters of retrenchment of workman in violation of provisions of The U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947/Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby the order has been passed in favour of the workman by the Labour Court, it has been the consistent view of the Apex Court that reinstatement/backwages/arrears should not be granted and instead compensation, as the Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of that particular case, may be awarded. In this regard he has relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court. 1. (2010) 6 SCC 773 ; Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others. 2. (2010) 9 SCC 126 ; Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty 3. (2013) 5 SCC 136 ; Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh. 4. Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submits that he has filed an application for summoning certain records i.e. Log Sheet/Log Book and Complaint Book for the period 1.10.1984 to 31.5.1989 of Town Sub Station, Balrampur from the office of Electricity Distribution Division, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand, Balrampur, in order to show that the opposite party no. 2 has consistently worked during this period and had completed more than 240 days in a calender year. 5. It is submitted that the petitioners in an arbitrary and illegal manner without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act had dispensed with the services of respondent no. 2. The learned Labour Court has rightly quashed the order of removal from the service dated 1.6.1989, holding it illegal and has directed for reinstatement of respondent no.2. The Labour Court has awarded 1/4th of the wages for the period from 1.6.1989 till the date of reinstatement of the respondent no.2. It has also directed that the opposite parties will also consider for regularization of the services of the respondent no.2. 6. The Labour Court has awarded 1/4th of the wages for the period from 1.6.1989 till the date of reinstatement of the respondent no.2. It has also directed that the opposite parties will also consider for regularization of the services of the respondent no.2. 6. Submission is that no interference is required in the impugned award and the petitioners shall be directed to reinstate the respondent no.2 in terms of the said award. It is also submitted by Pt.S.Chandra that provisions of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied at the time of filing of the writ petition, as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He has referred to the interlocutory order dated 16.4.2009 passed by the Court in this regard. It is also submitted that in compliance of the award the proceedings have been initiated and recovery certificate for recovery of Rs. 7,18, 019/- has been issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Faizabad against the petitioner/respondent no.2. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 8. So far as the compliance of Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, suffice is to observe that the impugned award has been passed under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act whereas the provisions of 17-B relates to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such would not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Apex Court in the case of UPSRT Corporation Vs. Surendra Singh; 2007 (114) FLR 164, has held that the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the proceedings under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. So far as the award dated 29.3.1993 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly accepted that the service of the petitioner/respondent no.2 was dispensed with without following the requirement of Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. As such, I am of the considered view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court does not require any interference. As such, I am of the considered view that the conclusion drawn by the learned Labour Court does not require any interference. However, so far as the reinstatement of the respondent no.2, as directed by the Labour Court, is concerned, suffice is to observe that the Apex Court has consistently held that where a long time back the workman was engaged on daily wages for certain period and has not been allowed to work by the department/industry, in such circumstances reinstatement or backwages should not be granted. The Court shall award compensation, as it may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (Supra), similar observations have been made in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the judgment which on reproduction read as under: 9. 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. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey; (2006) 1 SCC 479 , Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi; (2007) 9 SCC 353 , State of M.P. & Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Verma; (2007) 1 SCC 575 , Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban; (2007) 9 SCC 748 , Sita Ram & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute; (2008) 5 SCC 75 , Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai & Anr.; (2006) 11 SCC 684 , Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar; (2008) 4 SCC 261 ; and Mahboob Deepak V. Nagr Panchayat, Gajraula; (2008) 1 SCC 575 )". 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. 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. 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." 12. In the case of Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty (Supra), similar view has been taken by the Apex Court and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh has been awarded. The relevant paragraphs 2 and 7 of the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: "2. 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 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ?ID Act?)? The course of decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question. 7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh1 and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently 5 upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Onc lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. 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.? 13. In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh (Supra), the Apex Court considering the facts of the case has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to meet the ends of justice. Paragraphs 22 and 27 of the judgment on reproduction read as under: "22. From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. Paragraphs 22 and 27 of the judgment on reproduction read as under: "22. From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful 23 (2009) 16 SCC 562 11 termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief. 27. In our view, Harjinder Singh2 and Devinder Singh3 do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination,reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute.? 14. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute.? 14. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that he has moved an application for summoning certain documents is concerned, this Court is of the view that in the given facts and circumstances and after considering the judgments of the Apex Court as cited above, it would not be necessary to summon the records as prayed by the opposite party no.2, as this Court has come to the conclusion that in the given facts and circumstances, it would be proper to award compensation in stead of issuing direction for payment of wages. 15. As such, the application for summoning the records is rejected. 16. So far as the notice for recovery issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that proceedings for compliance of the award were initiated and in this regard the Labour Court may have issued the recovery certificate for recovery of certain amount from the petitioner/opposite party no.2, suffice is to observe that this Court vide interim order dated 29.9.1993 had stayed the operation, implementation and enforcement of the impugned award till the disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was, however, dismissed in default in the year 2008, which was subsequently restored after recall of the said order. There is no detailed order vacating the interim order, as such, the interim order granted at the time of admission i.e. order dated 29.9.1993 for all purposes remained very much effective and as such no recovery proceedings could have been initiated. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed above, I am of the view that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled for compensation for which he cannot insist for reinstatement or payment of backwages. The opposite party no. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court as discussed above, I am of the view that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled for compensation for which he cannot insist for reinstatement or payment of backwages. The opposite party no. 2 has worked with the petitioners about 27 years back that too for a period of less than 05 years, since the findings given by the Labour Court have been upheld and the removal of opposite party no.2 from employment has been held illegal, as such the opposite party no. 2 shall be entitled to get compensation which shall be a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh to meet the ends of justice. As such an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh is awarded as compensation in favour of opposite party no. 2, which shall be paid by the petitioners within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioners fail to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, an interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum on the delay shall be payable. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.