ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed in the year 2016 by the employer-petitioner challenging the award dt. 28th April, 2003 passed by the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. The Labour Court by award dt. 28th April, 2003, has declared the termination of services of the employee to be bad as being violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has made an order of reinstatement of the workman with continuity of services and payment of 50% back wages is also awarded. 2. The respondent was working as class-IV employee with the employer since July, 1990 and his services came to be terminated by order order dt. 1st June, 1995. The employee after termination of his services approached the State Government and after conciliation proceedings failed, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court as whether the employer-Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Todaraisingh, District Tonk was justified in terminating the services of the employee with effect from 1st June, 1995 and if the termination was bad, what relief was to be given to the employee concerned. 3. The employee-respondent workman pleaded in his statement of claim that he was employed in the month of July, 1990 as a Class-IV employee and his services was terminated with effect from 1st June, 1995 by oral order. The workman pleaded that he had completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months from the date of his termination and the employer had kept the junior persons in the job and further after termination of his services, new employees were also employed. 4. The Labour Court found that neither any reply to the statement of claim was filed by the employer-petitioner and in spite of last opportunity being granted on 28th November, 2002, the ex-parte proceedings were drawn. 5. The employee led his evidence by an affidavit and other documents marked as W1 to W36. The Labour Court after considering the entire evidence came to conclusion that the employee had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding one year from the date of his termination and further the junior persons were retained the principle of last come first was not followed and further appointments were given to other persons after termination of services of the petitioner. The finding of the Labour Court dt. The finding of the Labour Court dt. 28th April, 2003 is reproduced hereunder:- ^^esjs ls twfu;j Jfed dk;Z dj jgs gSa rFkk esjs dks lsok ls vyx djus ds ckn Hkh Jfedksa dks fu;ksftr fd;k gSA blds vykok izkFkhZ us osru C;kSjk iaftdk dh QksVks izfr;ka is’k dh gSaA Jfed us xzke iapk;r gehjiqj dk izek.k i= is’k fd;k gS ftlls Jfed dk yxkrkj pkj ik¡p o"kZ dk;Z djuk izrhr gksrk gSA Jfed ds 'kiFk i= vkSj mlds }kjk izLrqr nLrkostkr dk foi{kh dh vksj ls dksbZ [k.Mu ugh gSA foi{khx.k us dksbZ Dyse dk tokc Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA blls izrhr gksrk gS fd muds ikl Jfed ds Dyse dk dksbZ tokc ugha gSA Jfed ds 'kiFk i= o nLrkostkr ls lsok eqfDr ds fiNys ,d o"kZ esa Jfed }kjk 240 fnol ls vf/kd dk;Z djuk izrhr gksrk gSA foi{kh }kjk Jfed dks dksbZ ,d ekg dk uksfVl is ;k NVuh dk eqvkotk fn;k tkuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA blds vykok Jfed ls dfu"B Jfedksa dk dk;Z djuk vkSj izkFkhZ dh lsok eqfDr ds i'pkr u, Jfedksa dk yxkuk Hkh fl) gksrk gS vr% Jfed dk ;g Dyse lgh ik;k tkrk gSA** 6. The petitioner-employer did not challenge the said award till filing of the present writ petition and further the employer also did not file application to set aside ex-parte proceedings. 7. The employee-respondent was not reinstated back in service and he filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein he claimed his back wages as per the award. The Labour Court No. 2 in LCR No. 33/2003 decided the application of the employee and computed the amount of Rs. 57,526/- to be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of order dt. 27th July, 2009. 8. The employer-petitioner has filed a receipt dt. 17th February, 2016 as (Annex. 7) with the writ petition whereby payment of Rs. 87,708/- was said to be made to the employee through a cheque. The employer-petitioner after payment of the said amount has approached this Court, by filing the instant petition challenging the award which was passed on 28th April, 2003. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer, Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy. G.C., has submitted that award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the employee is wholly unjustified and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer, Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy. G.C., has submitted that award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the employee is wholly unjustified and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. 10. Counsel submitted that even if the termination of services of the employee was found to be unjustified being in violation of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, order of reinstatement cannot be made in a mechanical manner. Counsel submitted that even if the termination is bad for any reason, due to violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the employee can be compensated in the terms of money and adequate compensation can be given to him instead of reinstatement. 11. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had worked for about 5 years and when his services were terminated in 1995, reinstatement could not have been made by the Labour Court by passing the impugned award. 12. Counsel for the petitioner-employer has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 4 SCC 177. Counsel on the strength of the said judgment submits that if the employee was a daily wager and his services was terminated for some procedural defect, monetary compensation is the right answer and not the reinstatement with back wages. 13. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 14. This Court finds that the award was passed on 28th April, 2003 and Court had directed reinstatement of the respondent-employee with 50% back wages and continuity in service, as there was violation of Section 25F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 15. The filing of writ petition in the year 2016 speaks volumes about attitude of the employer to approach the High Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India as per their convenience and pleasure. The employer-State cannot be permitted to file petitions after a gap of about 13 years. 16. This Court finds that ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the employer-petitioner by the Labour Court on 28th November, 2002 and later on award was passed on 28th April, 2003, the State-employer never bothered to go back to the Labour Court and requested to set aside the ex-parte order. 16. This Court finds that ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the employer-petitioner by the Labour Court on 28th November, 2002 and later on award was passed on 28th April, 2003, the State-employer never bothered to go back to the Labour Court and requested to set aside the ex-parte order. 17. This Court does not find approve the practice of the employer to file the writ petition at such belated stage. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award which has been passed in the year 2003. 18. This Court further finds the unique stand taken by the employer to approach this Court by paying money to the employee in the month of February, 2016, after computation was done in the year 2009, by allowing the application of the workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide order dt. 27th July, 2009. The Labour Court had passed the order on 27th July, 2009 to pay the amount of Rs. 57,526/- within a period of three months failing which the said amount was to carry interest @ of 8% per annumn. 19. As far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the matter is concerned, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (Supra) and the principle laid down by the Apex Court is sought to be applied in the instant case. The relevant paras 33, 34 & 35 of the judgment passed in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (Supra) is reproduced hereunder:- “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 victimization. Unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F 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 25-F 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 daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)]. Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wages 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 from of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long fap, would not serve any purpose. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage 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 of 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.” 20. This Court finds that the Apex Court has laid down the principle in para 33 that ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal, cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. This Court finds that the Apex Court has laid down the principle in para 33 that ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal, cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The Apex Court further said that when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and termination is found to be illegal because of procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 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. 21. This Court finds from para 35 of the said judgment that the Apex Court has added a caveat in the above proposition. The Apex Court has said in para 35 that where termination of a daily-wage 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 i.e. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained, the reinstatement of workman cannot be denied. 22. The Apex Court further said that there may also be a situation that persons junior to such employee were regularized under some policy but the workmen 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 relief can be denied. 23. This Court finds that the Labour Court in the impugned award dt. 28th April, 2003, has given a categorical finding that the junior persons to the employee was working with the employer and further after termination of services of the employee, the respondents have employed the other persons and they were continued in the job. 24. This Court finds in view of directions/guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in para 35 in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (Supra), the Labour Court has not committed any illegality by passing the award of reinstatement. 24. This Court finds in view of directions/guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in para 35 in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal (Supra), the Labour Court has not committed any illegality by passing the award of reinstatement. The violation of Section 25-F is not the only reason or ground on which award has been passed, on the contrary there has been a violation of Section 25-G & 25-H as well and as per the directions of the Apex Court, the relief of reinstatement is required to be given. 25. This Court finds that the services by the employee were rendered for 5 years from 1990 to 1995 and the employer not only allowed to continue junior persons but further employer had employed more persons after termination of service of the employee-workman. The award which has been passed in the year 2003 has not been implemented by the employer and only a sum of Rs. 87,708/- is said to be paid to the employee concerned. This Court finds that the State-employer cannot be permitted to adopt such an attitude & policy towards the persons, who have served them and in whose favour lawful degree or award is passed by the Competent Court. 26. The employee concerned has been kept out of job by the employer since 2003 and by paying an amount of Rs. 87,708/-, the petitioner-employer has approached this Court calling in question the award, this Court does not find any error being committed by the Labour Court and on the ground of delay as well as on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is not accepted and the same is dismissed. 27. This Court further finds that the employee concerned has been left in lurch by the employer by not honoring the award which is passed in his favour in the year 2003, it is high time that State-employer realises its duty to implement the award or order passed by the Competent Court. The employer cannot force workman to run from pillar to post and to approach Court after the award passed in his favour. The position of an employee is reduced to such a precarious stage that he feels helpless and mighty employer-State forces him to kneel down. The employer cannot force workman to run from pillar to post and to approach Court after the award passed in his favour. The position of an employee is reduced to such a precarious stage that he feels helpless and mighty employer-State forces him to kneel down. This Court directs the employer to implement the award which is passed, within a period of two months and the compliance report may be furnished to this Court. Copy of this order be sent to the Respondent-employee. 28. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.