JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 rendered in Special Civil Application Nos. 8684/2000 and 8373/2000, whereby learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, filed by the present respondent authorities, challenging Award dated 12.01.2000 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference [LCJ] Nos. 219/95 and 220/95, granting reinstatement to the respondents-workmen in service with continuity and full back wages, along with other benefits. During pendency of Special Civil Application No. 8737/2000, the concerned respondent-Workman has expired. His legal heir is brought on record. 2. Facts of the case are adumbrated as under: 3. Both the Workmen were appointed as Work Charged Clerks in the year 1981. Their names and dates of appointment figure at Sr. Nos. 24 and 25 of the seniority list published by the Panchayat, Irrigation Division, Junagadh. As recorded by the Labour Court, they were initially appointed for a period of 29 days, and continued to work in the same capacity in different places. The last order appointing them on fixed salary of Rs. 260.00 for 29 days was passed on 09.04.1986. The said order speaks of appointment for scarcity or relief work at Keshod Taluka. The Workmen were asked to report at Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat, Irrigation Sub-Division. 4. Thereafter, vide Order dated 23.06.1986, Taluka Development Officer, Keshod, repatriated/ allotted the workmen to Executive Engineer, Junagadh, since their work was no longer required. 5. The Labour Court, in its Award, has recorded that as the Workmen were not appointed or allotted any work, they filed Civil Suit No. 148/1989 in the District Court. The same was disposed of on entering into compromise with the present respondent authorities. Since the authorities did respect the compromise, the workmen again filed Civil Suit No. 264/1993, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, they approached Labour Court, Junagadh, by filing Reference (LCJ) Nos. 219/95 and 220/95, wherein by the Award dated 12.01.2000, Labour Court, Junagadh, directed the respondent authorities to reinstate the workmen with continuity of service with full back wages. 6. The present Respondents-original petitioners, by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 8684/2000 and 8737/2000, challenged the award dated 12.01.2000 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (LCJ) Nos. 219/95 and 220/95. 6. The present Respondents-original petitioners, by way of Special Civil Application Nos. 8684/2000 and 8737/2000, challenged the award dated 12.01.2000 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (LCJ) Nos. 219/95 and 220/95. Vide judgment and order dated 24.08.2007, learned Single Judge set aside the said award by observing that in cases of daily wagers, there is nothing like regular reinstatement, because, a daily wager is not a regular workman or employee, his reinstatement would only be inclusion of his name in the list required to be maintained under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Central Rule 77 or the State Rule 78/82. 7. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, supported the judgment passed by learned Single Judge by stating that the concerned workmen were only engaged for the purpose of scarcity relief work, and they had no right to claim for appointment after the said relief work was over. 8. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants-workmen, has challenged the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal raising various contentions. It is stated that they were appointed in 1981 by undergoing an interview and worked as regular Work Charged Clerks under the Panchayat. He has also stated that some of the persons, who were juniors to them, were retained, whereas they were terminated from service. A specific contention to this effect was raised before the Labour Court about retaining two workmen, whose names figured at Sr. Nos. 31 and 32, whereas the appellants-workmen, who figured at Sr. Nos. 24 and 25, were terminated. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate, has vehemently argued that the workmen are required to be reinstated in service instead of granting compensation. A specific contention to this effect was raised before the Labour Court about retaining two workmen, whose names figured at Sr. Nos. 31 and 32, whereas the appellants-workmen, who figured at Sr. Nos. 24 and 25, were terminated. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate, has vehemently argued that the workmen are required to be reinstated in service instead of granting compensation. To substantiate the case of the workmen, reliance is placed upon the following judgments:- (i) Union of India & Others vs. Ramchander & Another, 2007 (1) SCC 439 (ii) Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Surat vs. Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi C/o. Sharad S. Patha, 2001 (3) LLN 469 (iii) Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal & Another vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat & Another, 2001 (3) CLR 77 (iv) Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (3) SCC 192 (v) Judgment and order dated 08.07.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 850/01 in Special Civil Application No. 4916 of 2001. No further contention is raised. 9. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, and perusing the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge, as well as the Award, we hold that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by ignoring the order dated 23.06.1986 passed by Taluka Development Officer, Keshod, whereby it was specifically stated that the workmen were repatriated from 23.06.1986 to Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Junagadh. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate, was unable to dislodge the query asked by this Hon'ble Court whether the workmen were in fact allowed to be reported at their original post as per the aforesaid order dated 23.06.1986. The concerned authority of Irrigation Department, Junagadh, i.e. Executive Engineer should have followed the order dated 23.06.1986 repatriating the appellants-workmen to their original post or to the concerned status, on which the appellants were working. In such circumstances, it can be said that the respondent authorities have violated their own order. Instead of allowing the workmen to work at their original post, they have terminated their services retaining the juniors. 10. While allowing the petitions challenging the Award, learned single Judge has observed that in cases of daily wagers, there is nothing like regular reinstatement, because, a daily wager is not a regular workman or employee. Instead of allowing the workmen to work at their original post, they have terminated their services retaining the juniors. 10. While allowing the petitions challenging the Award, learned single Judge has observed that in cases of daily wagers, there is nothing like regular reinstatement, because, a daily wager is not a regular workman or employee. It is further observed that if a daily wager does not get wages for the whole month, then, the full back wages cannot be awarded in favour of such workman. Though the observation made by learned Single Judge qua regularization cannot be faulted with, in our considered opinion, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge qua payment of wages cannot be endorsed. The employer cannot be allowed to resort to unfair labour practice by not paying wages and thereafter denial of full back wages to the workman on account of such practice adopted by the employer will be against the scheme and object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the I.D. Act" for short). As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rundhan Singh, AIR 2005 SC 3966 , a host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment, i.e. whether after proper advertisement of the vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange, nature of appointment, namely, whether ad hoc, short term, daily wage, temporary or permanent in character, any special qualification required for the job and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages. One of the important factors which has to be taken into consideration, is the length of service, which the workman had rendered with the employer. The facts of each case are to be examined and analyzed for denying or granting the full back wages to the workman. It is the nature of work and mode of termination which determines the back wages and continuity of service of the workman. Section 25-B of the I.D. Act defines continuous service. The Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Pillai vs. Siemens Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC 533 has observed as under: "It is not the law that on completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year, the concerned employee becomes entitled to for regularization of his services and/or permanent status. Section 25-B of the I.D. Act defines continuous service. The Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Pillai vs. Siemens Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC 533 has observed as under: "It is not the law that on completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year, the concerned employee becomes entitled to for regularization of his services and/or permanent status. The concept of 240 days in a year was introduced in the industrial law for a definite purpose. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, the concept of 240 days was introduced so as to fasten a statutory liabilities upon the employer to pay compensation to be computed in the manner specified in Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before he is retrenched from services and not for any other purpose. In the event a violation of the said provision takes place, termination of services of the employee may be found to be illegal, but only on that account, his services cannot be directed to be regularized. Direction to reinstate the workman would mean that he gets back the same status." 11. We may with profit further observe that the fact of retaining the juniors to the appellants itself suggests that the work was available. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra), it is settled law that for attracting applicability of Section 25G of the Act, the workman is not required to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days during twelve calendar months, preceding the termination of service and it is sufficient for him to plead and prove that while effecting retrenchment, the employer violated the rule of "last come first go" without tangible reason. It is undisputed fact that the persons junior to the appellants were retained in service. Hence, the termination of services of the workmen is in violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, has also suggested that appropriate compensation may be paid to workmen instead of reinstatement. 12. Judgments relied upon by Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the appellants-workmen, in the case of Union of India & Others (supra) will not apply in the present case since the Apex Court has allowed 50% back wages and reinstatement therein on the facts of that case wherein sufficient work was available with the employer. 12. Judgments relied upon by Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the appellants-workmen, in the case of Union of India & Others (supra) will not apply in the present case since the Apex Court has allowed 50% back wages and reinstatement therein on the facts of that case wherein sufficient work was available with the employer. It is undisputed fact that the appellants-workmen were appointed by the Panchayat on fixed pay of Rs. 260/- for a period of 29 days as and when their services were required. They worked between the year 1981 to 1986. i.e. for five years approx. Lastly, they were appointed for scarcity relief work for the same period, and thereafter they were re-allotted to their original place due to non-availability of work. In the present case, the sole appellant of Letters Patent appeal No. 2097/2007 has reached the age of 54 years, it would not be appropriate to direct reinstatement at this stage. As recorded earlier, the workman of Special Civil Application No. 8737/2000 has expired during pendency of the petition. 13. In a recent decision dated 22.01.2016, in case of Raj Kumar vs. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Civil Appeal No. 508 of 2016, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "Having regard to the period of work starting from 1984 though intermittently upto the year 1993, we are of the view that the interest of justice should be advanced in case the compensation is slightly enhanced and fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, it is ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and there shall be no further claim with respect to the appellant's engagement with the respondent." 14. In the case of Rajkumar S/o Rohitlal Mishra vs. Jalagaon Municipal Corporation, 2013 (2) SCC 751 , the Supreme Court has observed as below: "In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in appeal that the appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work was available and they were not posted on regular basis against sanctioned post, we do not find any reason and justification to interfere with the orders passed by the two courts. However, we are of the view that the direction for payment of Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellants will not compensate the appellants. However, we are of the view that the direction for payment of Rs. 10,000/- each to the appellants will not compensate the appellants. Hence, the appellants who approached for the conciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date of termination are entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each whereas one of the appellants namely Rajkumar Rohitlal who has approached the Conciliation Officer within 2 to 3 years shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-." 15. Present Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed as non-maintainable in view of Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Firoze M. Mogal and Another, 2014 (1) GLH 1 . However, the same were remanded by the Apex Court by virtue of judgment dated 06.07.2015 rendered in the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijayasinghji vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 (9) SCC 1 . 16. We, therefore, allow the appeals and quash and set aside the common judgment and order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos. 8684/2000 and 8373/2000. Looking to the facts of the present case, we deem fit that the ends of justice shall be met if an appropriate compensation of Rs. 1,85,000/- is awarded to each of the workman. We make it clear that this is in addition to whatever has already been paid to them. The amount shall be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. 17. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in connected matter.