JUDGMENT : 1. As per office report, there is a delay in filing present appeal for which separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay U/S. 5 d Limitation Act. 2. After hearing Counsel for the parties, we find that the delay has beer 5 satisfactorily explained & deserves to be condoned. 3. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay U/S. 5d Limitation Act stands allowed and the delay is condoned. 4. Heard on merits. 5. Instant special appeal is directed against order of the Ld. Single 10 Judge dated 21st November, 2013, modifying the award impugned passed by the Ld. Labour Court dated 10.9.1998 while maintaining reinstatement the workman agreed to forgo back wages. 6. The facts which culled out & relevant for our consideration are that the respondent-workman is a holder of diploma in Civil Engineering & is engaged on daily wages basis as Junior Engineer in the year 1988 and had effectively worked a almost for a period of eight months La : 8/1/1988-13/9/1988 and indusputably, it was an adhoc appointment on daily wage basis and procedure prescribed by law for seeking public employment mandated u/Art.14 of the Constitution was not followed and after his services : 20 came to be dispensed with w.e.f. 14.9.1988, industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred by the Government pursuant to the notification A j 31.3.1997 & after service of notice of statement of claim was filed by the j appellant-workman before the Ld. Labour Court, Bharatpur no-one appeared . on behalf of the employer despite service of notice, ex-parte proceedings 25 were initiated against the employer and on the basis of the material available on record, the fact that he had worked for more than 240 days the Ld. Labour Court found that there was violation of Sec. 25-F & 25-H of the Act, 1947 but as it revealed that the workman is in public employment since 18.1.1992 thus while passing the ex-parte award dated 10.9.1998, the reference was answered 30 in affirmative by the Ld. Labour Court found that there was violation of Sec. 25-F & 25-H of the Act, 1947 but as it revealed that the workman is in public employment since 18.1.1992 thus while passing the ex-parte award dated 10.9.1998, the reference was answered 30 in affirmative by the Ld. Labour Court, as a consequence whereof, termination of the respondent-workman w.e.f. 14.9.1988 was held to be in violation d Section 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with a further direction to the appellant-employer for his reinstatement & held that he will be entitled for salary/other benefits for the period 14.9.1988 to 17.1.1992 and 35 other consequential benefits which were made effective were directed to be paid only after 17.1.1992. However, before approaching to this Court, application came to be filed by the employer under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 10.9.1998 but that came to be rejected by the IQ Labour Court vide its order dated 24.8.2011 and the ex-parte award dated 10.9.1998 followed with order dated 24.8.2011 came to be assailed by the employer filing writ petition, the Id. Single Judge taking assistance of the circular of t State Government dated 23.10.2013 and para 1(b) that where the workman worked for less than a year, the dispute has to be settled by making lump-sum payment in lieu of reinstatement taking note of the period 2017(1) WLC (Raj.)(UC) 343 D.O. Panchayat Samiti, Sapotara v. Ishwari Prasad J. Engr. service, at the same time it is provided in para 1(a) of the circular which extensively deals with the matters, in the cases where award of reinstatement is passed in favour of the workman or there is an order in favour of the workman U/S. 33(2)(b) of the Act, the employer i.e. State Government/Public Sector undertaking if is in appeal/writ petition or making payment to the workman U/S. 178 of the Act, those matters may be settled through the spirit of Lok Adalat on certain terms & conditions. 7. In the instant case, the Ld. Single Judge disposed of the writ petition placing reliance on the circular of the State Government dated 23.10.2013 of which reference has been made and while passing the order impugned the record has not been looked into. 7-A. Counsel for appellant submits that as regard circular of the State Government dated 23.10.2013 on which the Id. Single Judge disposed of the writ petition placing reliance on the circular of the State Government dated 23.10.2013 of which reference has been made and while passing the order impugned the record has not been looked into. 7-A. Counsel for appellant submits that as regard circular of the State Government dated 23.10.2013 on which the Id. Single Judge placed reliance while disposing of the writ petition under order impugned dated 21.11.2013, the said circular has no application in the facts of the instant case and even if para 1-A and B of the circular are read conjointly, it gives out that the dispute is to be settled if there is an award of reinstatement in favour of the workman & he had worked for more than a year but in the instant case the workman had worked according to his own statement from 8.1.1998 to 13.9.1998 & that being so at least the award of reinstatement impugned herein 10.9.1998 does not deserve to be implemented and submits that as regards the back wages are concerned after the workman got employment & worked initially as Laboratory Assistant Grade-Ill vide order dated 16.1.1992, there is no justification in making payment of back wages to him & submits that the workman hardly worked for eight months and looking to overall facts & circumstances there is no justification of his reinstatement and as regards the back wages are concerned after the workman got employment & worked initially as Laboratory Assistant Grade-Ill vide order dated 16.1.1992, there is no justification in making payment of back wages to him & submits that the workman hardly worked for eight months and looking to overall facts & circumstances there is no justification of his reinstatement and as regards the back wages are concerned, since he is in employment & getting full salary that dis-entitles him seeking back wages. 8. Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-workman submits that this fact remains un-controverted that the workman had worked effectively for the period 8.1.1998 to 13.9.1988 and he is able to make but a case of non-compliance of Sec. 25-F & Sec. 25-H of the Act 1947 which indisputably was not complied with by the respondents in the instant case, resultantly reinstatement would follow for which tangible evidence came foreword on record & being in employment for the period which has been taken care of by the Id. Labour Court that does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 10. At the outset, it may be noticed that as regards circular of the Government dated 23.10.2013 is concerned, a conjoint reading of para 1(A) & (B) makes it clear that distinction has been made where the workman had worked a year or more & there is an award of reinstatement and in other cases where there is an award of reinstatement, the distinction is based on the working of the workman and the option is to be exercised by making lump-sum payment as evident from para 8 of Clause-1 of the Government circular dated 23.10.2013. 11. Indisputably, in the instant case, the workman had worked for the period w.e.f. 8.1.1998 to 13.9.1988 i.e. for eight months and in the case where an award of reinstatement has been passed in favour of the workman and taking note of the circular of State Government dated 23.10.2013, it would have been a case for making payment of back wages to settle the dispute but not a case of reinstatement. Although the parties are presented by the respective counsel and Id. Single Judge took note of circular dated 23.10.2013, but the effective period of working is from 8.1.1988 to 13.9.1988 (eight months) and that being so Clause-B of the circular dated 23.10.2013 is to be invoked when there is reinstatement of the workman but in the instant case, this fact has been taken note of the by Id. Labour Court in its award and we find no substance that a person worked on adhoc basis for a period of eight months in the employment in the State Government seeking reinstatement. 12. Labour Court in its award and we find no substance that a person worked on adhoc basis for a period of eight months in the employment in the State Government seeking reinstatement. 12. We have gone through the merits of the matter and according to the finding of the learned Labour Court he had worked for more than 240 days as contemplated U/S 25-B of the Act of 1947, and was entitled to seek protection of Section 25-F and 25-H and few persons as alleged being junior ‘ to him were detained in service, it is a consistent view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in case of there being violation of 25-F of the Act of 1947, there should not be automatic reinstatement and it depends on the facts of each case to be taken care of while restoring public employment and we find substance that even if it would be a case violation of 25-F and 25-H of the Act of 1947 for which adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement could have been awarded to him if violation of mandatory requirement of law stands established. 13. The Ld. Labour Court has mentioned that the respondent was appointed as Teacher Grade-III under the Government of Rajasthan w.e.f. 18.1.1992 but the fact is that he joined initially service on the post of Laboratory Assistant on 27.5.95 and thereafter on the post of Teacher Grade-III dated 4.11.1997, we do not find any substance in granting back wages and in our view the special appeal deserves to be allowed. 14. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order impugned passed by Id. Single Judge dated 21.11.2013 & the award dated 10.9.1998 are hereby quashed & set aside. No costs.