JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Letters Patent Appeals and as such arise out of the common impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017 are the Cross Appeals to the appeals preferred by the original workmen being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2290/2017 with 2614/2017 to 2618/2017, all these Letters Patent Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeals in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That respective original respondent – original workmen were serving as daily wager watchman. All of them raised industrial dispute challenging their retrenchment / termination which were referred to the Labour Court, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”) which were numbered as Reference (LCB) No.203/1990 to 204/1990, 207/1990 to 209/1990 and 211/1990. It was the case on behalf of the original workmen that their termination / retrenchment was in breach of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”) more particularly sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act. All the references were opposed by the Gujarat Maritime Board – employer, it was the specific case on behalf of the employer – GMB that none of the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year. It was also the case on behalf of the employer – GMB that all the concerned workmen were appointed as casual – temporary watchman for a period of 4 months only and that they worked for the period between July 1987 to November 1987. It was the specific case on behalf of the employer – GMB that as and when the ship comes they were appointed on a purely temporary daily wage basis to help the permanent watchman. It was also the case on behalf of the management – employer that all of them were appointed at Nokha / Juna Bandar and as the work on the said port was closed, their services were put to an end. 2.2 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court specifically observed and held that the concerned workmen have failed to prove that they have worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. 2.2 That on appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court specifically observed and held that the concerned workmen have failed to prove that they have worked for not less than 240 days in the last preceding year. The learned Labour Court also specifically observed and held that the concerned workmen worked only for the period between July 1987 to November 1987 and that too as a daily wage temporary watchman. Therefore, the learned Labour Court held that there was no breach of section 25F of the ID Act. However, the learned Labour Court held that there was a breach of section 25G and 25H of the ID Act as subsequently on other ports the watchman were appointed. Therefore, the learned Labour Court held the termination illegal and in breach of section 25G and 25H of the ID Act and consequently granted reinstatement with 20% backwages with continuity of service. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court of reinstatement with continuity of 20% backwages, the GMB – employer preferred Special Civil Application Nos.2116/2009, 2117/2009, 2119/2009 to 2121/2009 and 2123/2009. That by common impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge partly allowed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications by quashing and setting aside the order of continuity and 20% backwages, however has confirmed the awards passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Special Civil Applications, both the GMB – employer as well as the original workmen have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2332/2017 are preferred by the GMB – employer and Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2290/2017 and 2164/2017 to 2168/2017 are preferred by the concerned original workmen. 3. Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the GMB – employer has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in confirming the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement. 4. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. 3. Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the GMB – employer has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in confirming the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement. 4. It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the GMB that assuming that there was breach of sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, in that case also, as the workmen worked only for the period between July 1987 to November 1987 and that too as daily wager / temporary watchman and when the workmen raised industrial dispute after a period of 3 years and even thereafter also, more than 27 years have passed, instead of confirming the reinstatement the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity etc. Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the GMB has submitted that as such according to the appellants the termination cannot be said to be in breach of sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act inasmuch as the other watchmen were appointed at different ports. It is submitted that in any case if the lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity etc. is awarded, the appellant – GMB would be satisfied. In support of grant of lumpsum compensaiton in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity etc., Ms. Mandavia, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the GMB has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme 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 Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the GMB – employer and/or in the alternative to modify the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by awarding a reasonable lumpsum compensation to the original workmen in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity etc. 5. 5. Shri Yogen Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original workmen initially has opposed the appeals preferred by the management – GMB – employer and in support of the appeals preferred by the concerned workmen it is submitted that once the termination was found to be in breach of sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act, it can be said to be independent provisions and when the learned Single Judge confirmed the order of reinstatement, reinstatement is a matter of course and the same shall follow the continuity and full backwages. 5.1 He has further submitted that even subsequently and pursuant to the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as such the respective workmen are reinstated and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the appeals preferred by the GMB – employer and allow the appeals preferred by the concerned workmen. In the alternative, Shri Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original workmen has submitted that in case this Court is inclined to grant lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity etc. he has requested to award reasonable lumpsum compensation which may not be less than Rs.3 lakh per workman. 6. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted that the concerned workmen worked as a daily wager / temporary watchman for the period between July 1987 to November 1987 only. The learned Labour Court held the termination in breach of sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act and did not accept the case on behalf of the workmen that termination was in breach of section 25F of the ID Act. The learned Labour Court held the termination in breach of sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act solely on the ground that the seniority list of daily wager was not produced / maintained and that subsequently some watchmen were appointed as daily wagers at different ports. At this stage it is required to be noted that even the concerned workmen raised industrial dispute after a period of 3 years. It is required to be noted that thereafter more than 27 years have passed. At this stage it is required to be noted that even the concerned workmen raised industrial dispute after a period of 3 years. It is required to be noted that thereafter more than 27 years have passed. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts and circumstances of the case, it is required to be considered whether the learned Single Judge is right in confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court granting reinstatement. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of reinstatement the learned Single Judge ought to have awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of backwages, reinstatement etc. 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 paras 33 to 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. 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. 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.” In the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Others (Supra), after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of reinstatement and has awarded the lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages etc. Even subsequently, in the case of Satish Kantilal Amrelia (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has awarded lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages when the termination was found to be in breach of sections 25G and 25H of the ID Act and when the workmen worked for small tenure. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the appeals preferred by the GMB – employer being Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017 deserve to be partly allowed by awarding lumpsum compensation quantified at Rs.3 lakh per workmen and to that extent the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in respective Special Civil Applications and respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court are required to be modified. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017 are partly allowed. Impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.2116/2009, 2117/2009, 2119/2009 to 2121/2009 and 2123/2009 as well as the respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCB) Nos.203/1990, 204/1990, 207/1990 to 209/1990 and 211/1990 are hereby modified to the extent awarding Rs.3 lakh to each of the workmen by way of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, backwages, continuity etc. which shall be paid to the original workmen within a period of 6 weeks from today failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Respective Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017 are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. In view of disposal of main Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017, respective Civil Application Nos.16121/2017 to 16126/2017 also stand disposed of. 8.1 In view of partly allowing the Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2322/2017 to 2327/2017 and modifying the impugned respective judgment and awards passed by the learned Labour Court, as observed hereinabove, Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2290/2017 and 2614/2017 to 2618/2017 stand disposed of. In view of disposal of main Letters Patent Appeal Nos.2290/2017 and 2614/2017 to 2618/2017, Civil Application Nos.16047/2017 and 17134/2017 to 17138/2017 also stand disposed of.