JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Award dated 28.4.2011 passed in Reference No. 169 of 2006 by Presiding Judge Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court directing Nagar Panchayat, Santokhgarh Una (herein after referred as Nagar Panchayat) to reengage Kamal Dev forthwith on same terms and conditions, he was working with Nagar Panchayat i.e. on the basis of trips made by him on the tractor trolley as per existing rate, is subject matter of both writ petitions CWP No. 8035 of 2011 and CWP No. 11826 of 2011. Hence both are heard and decided with this common judgment. 2. In CWP No. 8035 of 2011 Nagar Panchayat has prayed for quashing and setting aside of impugned award, whereas in CWP No. 11826 of 2011 Kamal Dev has prayed for modification of award so as to grant him all consequential benefits, seniority and back wages from due date in addition to relief already granted by the Labour Court. 3. It is admitted case of parties that Kamal Dev, engaged by Nagar Panchayat on 5.9.1999, worked with Nagar Panchayat till 30.6.2004 and thereafter he was disengaged, whereupon he approached the authority under Industrial Disputes Act, in pursuance of which a reference was made by appropriate authority to Labour Court for adjudication as under:- “Whether the termination of services of Sh.Kamal Dev S/o Shri Krishan Chand by the Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Santokhgarh, District Una, H.P. w.e.f. 01.07.2004 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the workman is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 4. Kamal Dev submitted claim before Labour Court asserting that he was engaged by Nagar Panchayat w.e.f. 5.6.1999 till 30.6.2004 for cleaning streets, roads and clean garbage bins etc. and also for loading and unloading of solid waste in tractor trolley for dumping and he was made to work on all 7 days of the week and in lieu of that he was drawing Rs.1800/- per month on the date of his termination. It was also claimed that one Mr. Showara Singh, junior to him had been entrusted the work being performed by him and he was terminated without any charge-sheet, inquiry or show cause notice and in violation of principles of natural justice and Nagar Panchayat has committed breach of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. It was also claimed that one Mr. Showara Singh, junior to him had been entrusted the work being performed by him and he was terminated without any charge-sheet, inquiry or show cause notice and in violation of principles of natural justice and Nagar Panchayat has committed breach of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. He claimed reengagement with all consequential benefits including continuity of service. 5. As per stand of Nagar Panchayat, Kamal Dev was not falling in definition of ‘workman’ as defined in Industrial Disputes Act as he had been engaged for disposal of solid waste with tractor trolley on trip basis at the rate of Rs.50-60/- per trip and workman was a contract labourer and payment to him was being made on trip basis. To substantiate its claim, Nagar Panchayat also placed on record various receipts of payment made to Kamal Dev on trip basis. Nagar Panchayat disputed stand of Kamal Dev as ‘workman’ and consequently disputed claim of Kamal Dev being retrenched under I.D. Act. 6. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides definition of ‘workman’ as under:- “2(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.” 7. Retrenchment has been defined under Section 2(oo) of I.D. Act, which reads as under:- “2(oo) retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.” 8. The workman in any industry in continuous service for not less than 1 year shall not be retrenched without complying the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Section 25-F of the Act reads as under:- “25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 9. Dealing with cases related to Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, the Apex Court in case titled Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. and another, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 332 has held as under:- “27. Dealing with cases related to Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, the Apex Court in case titled Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. and another, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 332 has held as under:- “27. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it………” 10. Similarly, in case Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 142 the Apex Court has held that in a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to be adopted. (see para 20). 11. Dealing with a case related to the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, titled Union of India and another Vs. Surendra Pandey reported in (2015) 13 SCC 625, Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring its earlier judgments, re-iterated that legislation, beneficial in nature, ought to be liberally construed. (see para 15). 12. In a recent case pertaining to Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, titled Royal Western India Turf Club Limited Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and others, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 521 , the Apex Court has held as under:- “5……. The Act is a welfare legislation and is required to be interpreted so as to ensure extension of benefits to the employees and not to deprive them of the same which are available under the Act.” 13. Recently, in case related to Industrial Disputes Act, titled Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 541 , the Apex Court re-iterated the spirit and scheme of I.D. Act as under:- “25. Recently, in case related to Industrial Disputes Act, titled Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 541 , the Apex Court re-iterated the spirit and scheme of I.D. Act as under:- “25. The spirit and scheme of the ID Act was discussed by a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 as under: (SCC p. 323, para 18) “18. …..To sum up, the personality of the whole statute, be it remembered, has a welfare basis, it being a beneficial legislation which protects Labour, promotes their contentment and regulates situations of crisis and tension where production may be imperiled by untenable strikes and blackmail lock- outs. The mechanism of the Act is geared to conferment of regulated benefits to workmen and resolution, according to a sympathetic rule of law, of the conflicts, actual or potential, between managements and workmen. Its goal is amelioration of the conditions of workers, tempered by a practical sense of peaceful co-existence, to the benefit of both-not a neutral position but restraints on laissez faire and concern for the welfare of the weaker lot. Empathy with the statute is necessary to understand not merely its spirit, but also its sense.” (emphasis supplied). 14. Industrial Disputes Act is a beneficial legislation for protection of labour class and therefore, where two interpretations or view are possible, the interpretation favourable to beneficiary is to be adopted by the Court. 15. In light of above principle, material on record in present case is to be considered for deciding the legality of impugned award. 16. Kamal Dev had filed affidavit in his evidence, reiterating his statement of claim filed before Labour Court. He was cross-examined on behalf of Nagar Panchayat. In cross-examination, he admitted signatures on bills/receipts produced by Nagar Panchayat as Ex. R-1 to R-29 and also payment of amount to him every month on the basis of these bills, but denied knowledge about calculation of amount on trip basis. There was positive suggestion to him that he was assigned work to transport garbage in tractor trolley. It was also suggested to him that person appointed in his place was also being paid on trip basis. 17. There was positive suggestion to him that he was assigned work to transport garbage in tractor trolley. It was also suggested to him that person appointed in his place was also being paid on trip basis. 17. From evidence on record, it was clearly established that Kamal Dev was engaged by Nagar Panchayat for a work which was continuously available with them, but nomenclature to his assignment was given as a contract assignment on trip basis, whereas he was regularly assigned work for about 5 years and was paid every month for his work. Therefore, he cannot be considered as a casual labourer. The work of loading and unloading in tractor trolley was not only continuously available during his engagement but even after his removal, as it was admitted case of Nagar Panchayat, that someone else was engaged w.e.f. 1.7.2004 who was also being paid on trip basis. 18. By using clever phraseology or merely changing nomenclature, one cannot be denied benefits for which he is otherwise entitled under beneficial legislation on the basis of ground reality of the case. The Court, always, has power to unveil the truth. 19. Kamal Dev was disengaged for engaging someone else and not on account of unsatisfactory work, punishment for disciplinary action, continued ill health, voluntarily retirement or on retirement attaining age of superannuation. It is claimed that engagement of Kamal Dev was a trip based contract engagement. But even then, this contract was not time bound but against the work which was available continuously. In absence of term of contract engaging a workman, he should not be removed/replaced arbitrarily in derogation of law. Removal/replacement of Kamal Dev is neither a result of non-renewal of contract of employment on expiry of such contract nor on termination of contract under a stipulation contained in such contract. Therefore, replacement/removal of Kamal Dev is retrenchment under I.D. Act. 20. Kamal Dev was hired for a continuous work, though payment for his work was not termed as daily wage, but payment on trip basis, but it is hard fact that removal and transportation of garbage work is of continuous and regular work, which is available with any Nagar Panchayat and therefore, payment on trip basis for performing a work, which was bound to be available every day, tantamounts to payment on daily basis at the end of every month. 21. 21. Learned Labour Court has considered provisions of I.D. Act as well as ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in S.M. Nilajkar and Others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 3553 : (2003) 4 SCC 27 and Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa & others AIR 1978 SC 548 : (1978) 2 SCC 213 and has rightly held that Kamal Dev was a workman for the purpose of I.D. Act and Nagar Panchayat has violated provisions of Section 25-F of the Act in dispensing his services. 22. There is no material illegality or irregularity in the proceedings of Labour Court and also there is no error or mistake in appreciating the evidence on record and Labour Court has completely and correctly appreciated the material placed before it and no ground for interference, in findings that Kamal Dev was a workman under I.D. Act and his replacement/removal was illegal as Nagar Panchayat has violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, is made out. 23. Labour Court has directed to reengage Kamal Dev on the same terms and conditions, he was working. Learned counsel for Nagar Panchayat, under instructions of Executive Officer of Nagar Panchayat, submits that as of now system has changed and Nagar Panchayat has discontinued engaging person(s) itself for disposal of garbage and now work of cleaning and management of solid waste has been out sourced and there is neither work nor post with Nagar Panchayat to re-engage Kamal Dev and therefore, the directions issued by Labour Court is practically impossible to execute and relief granted to Kamal Dev has become redundant. 24. Learned counsel for respondent relying upon judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 6 SCC 773 , Bharat Sanchchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 and Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 submits that in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, in case of impossibility of re-engagement of his client, reasonable compensation in lieu of his re-engagement for his unlawful termination by Nagar Panchayat be awarded to him. 25. Respondent was engaged 17 years back and he worked for 5 years till his removal/replacement by another. 25. Respondent was engaged 17 years back and he worked for 5 years till his removal/replacement by another. At present scenario has changed as Nagar Panchayat has opted for outsourcing the work of solid waste management, therefore, in any case, even after 2004, working for some years, Kamal Dev was bound to be disengaged on adopting different mode and manner for cleaning and management of solid waste by Nagar Panchayat. Therefore, keeping in view the overall aspect of the case, it would be appropriate that instead of directions to reengage Kamal Dev with or without back wages, Nagar Panchayat is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to Kamal Dev. The said payment shall be made by Nagar Panchayat, Santokgarh, District Una, H.P. to Kamal Dev on or before 30th June, 2017. In case amount of compensation is not paid on or before 30th June, 2017, Kamal Dev shall also be entitled for interest @ 7 ½ % per annum from the date of award passed by the Labour Court till realization of the same. 26. Both petitions are disposed of in above terms along with pending applications, if any.