JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The respondent No. 1, employee preferred the claim petition before the learned Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term of the reference was with regard to the legality of termination of the respondent No. 1 with effect from March, 1984. The respondent No. 1 stated in his claim petition that he was appointed with the petitioner from June, 1982 and he continued to serve as MR Beldar till February, 1984. On 2nd February, 1984 Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Unit Incharge was given a charge list, in which 31 articles have been given to him for protection/watch while working as a watchman. During the course of the charge, certain items were stolen and an FIR was lodged upon which the respondent No. 1 remained in jail for 5 days. The services of respondent No. 1 was terminated without any enquiry even when he had worked as a workman for more than 240 days in the calendar year. The respondent No. 1 was acquitted from the charges so levelled against him under criminal law by the competent court vide order dated 21st August, 1989. 2. The petitioner submitted reply to the claim petition stating therein that the respondent No. 1 voluntarily stopped coming from the job as he did not report on the duty after 15.02.1984. It has been submitted that his case was covered 2 (oo) and (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus therefore there was no question of giving any notice of retrenchment, compensation pay to the respondent. The petitioner justified that since there was no termination, therefore there was no question of any notice, enquiry or any kind of order being passed for the same. The learned Labour Court passed an award vide order dated 24.04.1999 holding that since it was proved that the respondent No. 1 had completed 240 days in twelve preceeding calendar months and was not served any show cause notice or charge sheet so as to clarify the position while terminating his services was bad in the eye of law. It was also observed by the learned labour court that the FIR was lodged with regard to the alleged theft which resulted into acquittal of the respondent No. 1. It was also observed by the learned labour court that the FIR was lodged with regard to the alleged theft which resulted into acquittal of the respondent No. 1. The learned Labour Court has observed that since there is absolute violation of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947, therefore, the termination of service, of respondent No. 1 was illegal and unjustified. The respondent No. 1 was granted the status of continuity in service. Therefore, he was entitled to back-wages from 13.08.1990 to 29.04.1999. The petitioner thus challenged the award and the respondent gave a reply in which he stated that the respondent has continues service of 240 days in last 12 calendar months which was proved and therefore a clear violation of section 25F of the Act, 1947 and Sections 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (for short hereinafter) were violated. 3. The respondent No. 1 has also averred in the reply that the FIR which was resulted into termination of his service, has resulted into his acquittal and therefore there is no reason why the benefits of his employment should not be received by him. 4. Sh. Saurabh Saraswat, Dy. G.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-State has relied upon the judgment in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. v. Gitam Singh, 2013 (5) SCC 136 . The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh 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. 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. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh. That was a case where the workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984-85, were terminated without following Section 25-F. The industrial dispute was raised after five years and although the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement of the workmen which was not interfered by the High Court, this Court set aside the award of reinstatement and ordered payment of compensation. In paragraphs 4 and 5 (pg.559) of the Report this Court held as under: "4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as "daily wagers" and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice." In light of the above legal position and having regard to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 01.03.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 01.03.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge 25 as well as the Division Bench 26 of the High Court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award dated 28.06.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9 per cent per annum. 5. The counsel for the petitioner also stated that the learned Labour Court has erred in law by not framing the issues while deciding the reference and passing the award dated 29.04.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to para No. 6 of the award in which categorical stands of the petitioner was recorded that they had not terminated the service of the respondent No. 1 but he himself did not come for joining after 15.02.1984 and voluntarily left the service thereafter. 6. Mr. Ravi Chirania, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment in the case of Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan 2015 (12) SCC 754 , in which the judgment passed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4253/2002 decided on 18.11.2013 and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 54/2014 dated 4th April, 2014 were over turned and the award of the Labour Court was restored insofar as the order of the reinstatement in concerned. The relevant portion is as follows:- "The Labour Court has rightly followed the normal rule of reinstatement of the workman in his original post as it has found that the order of termination is void ab-initio in law for non compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act referred to supra. The relevant portion is as follows:- "The Labour Court has rightly followed the normal rule of reinstatement of the workman in his original post as it has found that the order of termination is void ab-initio in law for non compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act referred to supra. However, the Labour Court is not correct in denying back wages without assigning any proper and valid reasons though the employer did not prove either its stringent financial conditions for denial of back wages or that workman has been gainfully employed during the period from the date of order of termination till the award was passed in favour of the workman except granting Rs.2,500/- as compensation for the suffering caused to the workman. The same is erroneously modified by the learned single Judge who recorded the finding of fact for the first time by holding that the workman is a casual employee intermittently working in the respondent-Department. The learned single Judge of the High Court has exceeded his jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as per the legal principles laid down by this Court in the case of Harjinder Singh (supra) wherein this Court has held thus:- "17. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J, opined that "the concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State" - State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines AIR 1958 SC 923 ." The said principle has been reiterated by this Court in Jasmer Singh v. State Of Haryana & Anr. (Civil Appeal NO. 346 of 2015 decided on 13.1.2015). Therefore, in view of the above said case, the learned single Judge in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India erroneously interfered with the award of reinstatement and future salary from the date of award till date of reinstatement as rightly passed by the Labour Court recording valid and cogent reasons in answer to the points of dispute holding that the workman has worked from 1.1.1987 to 1.4.1992 and that noncompliance of the mandatory requirements under Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act by the respondent-Department rendered its action of termination of the services of the workman as void ab initio in law and instead the High Court erroneously awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench under their supervisory jurisdiction should not have modified the award by awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement which is contrary to the well settled principles of law laid down in catena of cases by this Court. In view of the foregoing reasons, the modified award passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court which was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court has rendered the impugned judgment and order bad in law as it suffers from not only erroneous reasoning but also an error in law. Therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order:- "The respondent-Department is further directed to reinstate the workman in his post and pay 25% back-wages from the date of termination till the date of award passed by the Labour Court and full salary from date of award passed by the Labour Court till the date of his reinstatement by calculating his wages/salary on the basis of periodical revision of the same within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment." 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case along with precedent law cited above, this court is of the opinion that the learned Labour Court has dealt with all aspects raised by the petitioner. In Para No. 9 of the award the calculation of service rendered by the respondent No. 1 has been calculated and the same was found to be of more than 240 days in the last 12 calendar months. Learned labour Court has also rightly held that not giving of any notice within the parameters of natural justice for the alleged theft committed by the respondent No. 1 clearly reflects that they have not terminated the service of the petitioner on account of the theft. The learned Labour Court has also held that the petitioner has failed to deny the completion of 240 days or the voluntarily not coming of the respondent No. 1 in the office. The learned Labour Court in para No. 12 of the award has observed that the attendance register has not been submitted by the petitioner and thus the absence of the respondent No. 1 has not been shown to have been marked regarding the petitioner in the concerned register. Once the absence has not been marked in the register and any notice or proceeding or information has not been submitted so as to prove that the respondent No. 1 was terminated on account of theft or he voluntarily left the job, then the Labour Court has rightly held that it is a case of clear violation of Section 25-F of the Act, of 1947. Once it was established by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 had not left the job voluntarily and his services were done away with without complying to the parameters of the section 25-F of the Act, 1947 then the termination of the respondent No. 1 has to go. On the basis of aforesaid discussion there is no reason as to why there should be any indulgence against the award passed by the Labour Court in case LCR 64/1992 on 29.04.1999. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.