JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The Writ Petition No. 19/04 directed against award dated 6.5.03 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Industrial Dispute Case No. 139/99, Writ Petition No. 5934/13 directed against award dated 8.6.11 in Industrial Dispute Case No. 68/09 and Writ Petition No. 2629/12 directed against order dated 15.2.12 rejecting the application of the workman seeking modification of the award dated 8.6.11 to the extent of relief of regularisation, passed in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No. 5B of 2011 passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner-Roopa Ram (hereinafter referred to as ‘Workman’) was employed as daily wages labourer under the Assistant Animal Husbandry Officer, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘employer’) on 16.4.90. Aggrieved by the termination of his services w.e.f. 31.12.90 by an oral order, the workman preferred a writ petition before this court. On the strength of the interim order passed by this court, the workman continued in service upto 23.1.91. Later, the Writ Petition No. 330/91 preferred by the workman was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of raising the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The Special Appeal preferred by the workman against the order passed by the learned Single Judge stood dismissed on 9.2.99. During the pendency of the appeal, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted the failure report to the State Government, which in its turn referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jodhpur vide notification dated 3.10.98. 4. The workman submitted his statement of claim with the averments that he had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, however, his services were brought to an end w.e.f. 31.12.90 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") and thus, the termination of his services is illegal and void. 5. The employer by way of a counter to statement of claim submitted that the workman had never worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year and as a matter of fact, had abandoned the services on 31.10.90. 5. The employer by way of a counter to statement of claim submitted that the workman had never worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year and as a matter of fact, had abandoned the services on 31.10.90. However, the factum of the workman being in continuous service of the respondents from 1.4.90 to 23.1.91 was admitted by the witness examined on behalf of the employer, based on documentary evidence on record. In this view of the matter, since the workman had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment and his services were brought to an end without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, the termination of his services was held to be illegal by the Labour Court and consequently, vide award dated 6.5.03, the workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 40% back wages from the date of reference i.e. 3.10.98. The validity of the award is questioned by the employer by way of Writ Petition No. 19/04. 6. Pursuant to the award passed as aforesaid, the workman was reinstated in service. The workman raised yet another industrial dispute claiming that the action of the employer in not regularising his services even after completion of 9 years of service and not granting selection grade, is illegal. The dispute was referred for adjudication by the State Government to the Labour Court, Jodhpur, vide notification dated 17.3.09. The Labour Court vide award dated 8.6.11 held that the action of the employer in not regularising the services of the workman even after completion of 9 years of service is not just and proper and he is entitled for regularisation of his services. The workman was held entitled for payment of wages in the regular pay scale w.e.f. 17.3.09 at par with workmen junior to him. The arrear of wages was directed to be paid within a period of five months, however, the Labour Court held that the workman being not a regular employee, till the date his services are regularised, he cannot be extended benefits of selection grades admissible on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Aggrieved by the award dated 8.6.11, the employer has preferred Writ Petition No. 5934/13. 7. Aggrieved by the award dated 8.6.11, the employer has preferred Writ Petition No. 5934/13. 7. The workman also filed a writ petition aggrieved by the award dated 8.6.11 contending that he is entitled to be regularised in service w.e.f. 15.4.99. The writ petition being No. 5916/11 preferred by the workman was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 11.7.11 observing that the workman may make an appropriate application before the Labour Court pointing out that though the adjudication has been made, the relief prayed for has not been granted. In these circumstances, the workman preferred an application being no. 5B/2011 before the Labour Court, Jodhpur, which stands dismissed vide order dated 15.2.12, the legality whereof is challenged by the workman by way of Writ Petition No. 2629/12. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the employer contended that workman had not completed 240 days of service in a calendar year rather, he abandoned the services on 31.10.90 and thus, the Labour Court has seriously erred in holding that the termination of services of the workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act is bad in law. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, even if the termination of services of the workman is held to be illegal, he had not worked with employer even for a year and the dispute was raised after a delay of about 8 years and thus, at the most the workman is entitled for lump sum compensation to be determined by this court. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota vs. Mohan Lal, Civil Appeal No. 6795 of 2013, decided on 16.8.2013. Learned counsel submitted that the workman was employed on daily wages basis and has not actually worked with the employer from the date of abandonment of his services till the date of reinstatement in service in compliance of the award passed by the Labour Court and therefore, he cannot be considered to be in continuous service so as to make him entitle for consideration of his case for regularisation. Learned counsel submitted that regular posts in the cadre are required to be filled in by way of regular process of recruitment and the workman cannot claim regularisation of his services as a matter of right. Learned counsel submitted that in compliance of the award, pending disposal of the writ petition, the workman has been reinstated in service but on that account, he does not become entitle for payment of salary in the regular pay scale and thus, the directions issued by the Labour Court directing payment of salary to the workman in the regular pay scale at par with the persons junior to him is ex facie illegal. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Daya Lal and Others, (2011) 2 SCC 429 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the workman contended that the factum of the workman being in continuous service of 240 days preceding the date of retrenchment stands admitted by the respondent-employer and thus, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the termination of his services without compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act is illegal, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court having directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, for all intent and purposes, the workman deserves to be considered in continuous service of the employer since 1990 and thus, entitled for regularisation of his services. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees' Union vs. Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited and Another, JT 2006 (7) SC 151 and Bhupinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2013 L.I.C. 3859 and a decision of this court in the matter of Mohammed Ali vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2008 (3) CDR 1866 (Raj.). 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. Indisputably, the case as set out by the workman in his statement of claim was that he was employed on daily wages basis w.e.f. 16.4.90 and his services were brought to an end by an oral order w.e.f. 31.12.90, however, on the strength of the interim order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 330/91, he continued in service upto 23.1.91. The employer in its counter to the claim, while not denying the engagement of the workman as daily wage labourer w.e.f. 16.4.90, had taken the stand that w.e.f. 31.10.90, he abandoned the services. It is to be noticed that the witness produced on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court in his deposition, on the basis of the attendance register produced, categorically admitted that the workman was in continuous service from 16.4.90 to 23.1.91. Thus, apparently, the employer had not approached the Labour Court with clean hands. In the considered opinion of this court, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that the workman had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment remains a finding of fact, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court. 12. It is not disputed that while terminating the services of the workman, who had completed 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not complied with and thus, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court that termination of services of the workman by the employer is not just and proper, cannot be faulted with. 13. Admittedly, the action of the employer in terminating the services was questioned by the workman by way of writ petition before this court immediately and an interim order was also passed by this court in his favour. It is true that the writ petition preferred by the workman was ultimately dismissed by this court on the ground of availability of remedy under the Act, but immediately thereafter, the workman raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 12.3.96. Thus, it cannot be said that the dispute was raised by the workman after inordinate and unexplained delay. 14. It is true that the writ petition preferred by the workman was ultimately dismissed by this court on the ground of availability of remedy under the Act, but immediately thereafter, the workman raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 12.3.96. Thus, it cannot be said that the dispute was raised by the workman after inordinate and unexplained delay. 14. It is not the law that where a workman had worked with the employer for a short period and termination of his services is found to be illegal, the Labour Court instead of directing reinstatement in service should only award lump sum compensation in favour of the workman. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra), relied upon by the employer does not help it more so when, in compliance of the award, the workman already stands reinstated and continues in service till this date. 15. Coming to the question of payment of wages to the workman in the regular pay scale admissible to the post and regularisation of his services, it is to be noticed that the workman was employed only on daily wages basis and not by way of regular process of recruitment and therefore, he could not have claimed the payment of wages in the regular pay scale as a matter of right. Of course, on the reinstatement in service pursuant to the award, he was entitled for minimum wages admissible to the workman of his category, as prescribed by the State Government. But then, a person employed on daily wages basis discharging the same duties, which are being discharged by the regularly employed workman, cannot be continued as such for indefinite period and thus, at least, the workman was entitled for payment of wages in the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post of which he was discharging the duties. Merely because, the workman is treated to be in continuous service pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court, he cannot be held entitled for salary in the regular pay scale admissible to the post at par with the regularly employed workmen in the cadre even if, while taking into consideration the length of service such employee is junior to him. 16. 16. For the parity of reasons, the workman cannot claim regularisation of services as a matter of right. But then, in Uma Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question regarding regularisation of services of the employees who are working for number of years, observed: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointment) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above-referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularisation or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." 17. In Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the consideration of the claim of the workmen who were working for number of years as contingent workers for regularisation strictly in accordance with the directions given by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case (supra). 18. In Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the consideration of the claim of the workmen who were working for number of years as contingent workers for regularisation strictly in accordance with the directions given by the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's case (supra). 18. In Nihal Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court while considering its decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), observed that the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot become a license for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities and directed the regularisation of services of the persons working on daily wages basis for decades even by creating necessary post within the specified time. 19. Adverting to the facts of present case, it cannot be disputed that in view of the award passed by the Labour Court directing his reinstatement with continuity of service, the workman continues in service of the employer since 16.4.90. That apart, after reinstatement in service, in compliance of the award, he is continuously working with the employer for more than a decade and thus, viewed from any angle, the employer is under an obligation to consider his case for regularisation of services keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra). 20. In view of the discussion above, the Writ Petition No. 19/04 preferred by the petitioner-employer is dismissed. The Writ Petition No. 2629/12 filed on behalf of the workman claiming regularisation in service w.e.f. 15.4.99 is also dismissed. The Writ Petition preferred by the employer being No. 5934/13 is partly allowed. The workman shall be entitled for payment of salary in the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post of which he was discharging duties, from the date of reference i.e. 17.3.09. The arrear of wages shall be paid to the workman within a period of two months, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of the award by the Labour Court i.e. 8.6.11. The employer shall consider the case of the workman for regularisation of services, keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The employer shall consider the case of the workman for regularisation of services, keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that on workman being found entitled for regularisation, his services shall be regularised from the date the persons junior to him engaged on daily wages, similarly situated, are extended benefits of regularisation. 21. Accordingly, the award dated 6.5.03 passed by the Labour Court is not interfered with. The award dated 8.6.11 passed by the Labour Court in Industrial Dispute Case No. 68/09 shall stand modified in the terms indicated above. No order as to costs.