JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.5367/2009 by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the said Special Civil Application preferred by the appellant herein to the extent modifying the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court and awarding 10% backwages from April 1989 to the date of the award, however has confirmed the order of reinstatement granted by the learned Labour Court, the original petitioner – Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation – employer has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Though served no body appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 and therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal is heard exparte. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That the respondent No.1 herein – original workman raised an industrial dispute in the year 1989 challenging his alleged termination / retrenchment in the year 1984. It is required to be noted that as such the workman was appointed as a daily wager and his appointment as a daily wager cleaner was not after following the due procedure of selection as required. It was alleged that after having worked for 8 years continuously, all of a sudden his services were terminated on and from 01.06.1984. However, as observed hereinabove, his alleged termination on and from 01.06.1984 was challenged after a period of 5 years by raising the industrial dispute in the year 1989. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar, which was numbered as Reference (LCB) No.108/1989. It was the specific case of the employer that infact the workman himself stopped coming on duty. It was also specifically the case on behalf of the employer that in none of the years more particularly in the last preceding year, he worked for more than 240 days in a year. The workman did not lead any evidence to prove that infact he worked for not less than 240 days. On the other hand the Management produced the statement showing for how many days he worked between 1978 to 1981. It was the specific case on behalf of the employer that after 1981 the workman has not worked at all. The workman did not lead any evidence to prove that infact he worked for not less than 240 days. On the other hand the Management produced the statement showing for how many days he worked between 1978 to 1981. It was the specific case on behalf of the employer that after 1981 the workman has not worked at all. Despite the above, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the reference solely on the ground that there was a breach of section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) inasmuch as after 1984 some other employees were continued / taken on duty and the workman was not called for duty. Therefore, the learned Labour Court held the termination / retrenchment in breach of section 25H of the ID Act and consequently granted reinstatement with 20% backwages from 01.08.1984. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court of reinstatement and 20% backwages from 01.08.1984, the employer – Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation preferred Special Civil Application No.5367/2009. By impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court of reinstatement, however has modified the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court to the extent awarding 10% backwages from the April 1989 (instead of awarding 20% backwages from 01.08.1984). 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in confirming the order of reinstatement and awarding 10% backwages, the employer – original petitioner – Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 4. Shri H.S. Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Single Judge has materially erred in confirming the order of reinstatement and granting 10% backwages. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein that as such the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the workman himself stopped coming on duty. 4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein that as such the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that as such the workman himself stopped coming on duty. It is further submitted by Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that the industrial dispute was raised after a period of 5 years. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have quashed and set aside the order of reinstatement granted by the learned Labour Court. In the alternative it is submitted by Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein that assuming that the termination was found to be in breach of section 25H of the ID Act, in that case also, considering the fact that in none of the years the workman worked for not less than 240 days in any of the year and that he was a daily wager and more than 30 years have passed after the date of the alleged termination, the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded the lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. In support of his above submissions, he has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. 1. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha (2014) 16 SCC 130 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 117 3. District Development Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia Civil Appeal No.19857-19858 of 2017 4. Amreli Municipality vs. Timaniya Maganbhai Gordhanbhai Special Civil Application No.10712/2010 Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present Letters Patent Appeal and/or in the alternative to modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge awarding reasonable lumpsum compensation to the original workman in lieu of reinstatement, backwages etc. 5. As observed hereinabove, though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 6. We have heard Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein. We have perused and considered the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. As observed hereinabove, though served nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. 6. We have heard Shri Munshaw, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein. We have perused and considered the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. From the material on record it appears that according to the workman who was serving as a daily wager cleaner and according to him his services were terminated illegally in the month of May 1984. However, it is required to be noted that the industrial dispute was raised for the fist time in the year 1989 i.e. after the period of 5 years. The workman failed to prove / lead any cogent evidence to prove that he worked for not less than 240 days in all the years more particularly in the last preceding year. From the material on record produced by the employer it appears that the workman worked for 88 & ½ days in the year 1978; in the year 1979 he worked for NIL days; in the year 1980 he worked for 138 days and in the year 1981 upto March 1981, he worked for 50 days. It is required to be noted that the learned Labour Court held the termination illegal and in breach of section 25H of the ID Act on the ground that some other cleaners were made permanent subsequently. It is also required to be noted that by the time the learned Labour Court passed the award, more than 25 years have passed from the date of termination and when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, more than 35 years had passed from the date of termination. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that instead of grant of reinstatement, the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. We are supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. (Supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra). In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra), in para 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: “33. We are supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. (Supra) and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra). In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra), in para 35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under: “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a dailywage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on dailywage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a dailywage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here . In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here . There may be cases where termination of a dailywage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied.” 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Letters Patent Appeal succeeds in part. Impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.5367/2009 confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court of reinstatement and backwages (to the extent of even 10% from 1989) is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge are modified to the extent awarding Rs.1.50 lakh to the original workman by way of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages etc. Present Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.