JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. ADMIT. Shri R.D. Dave, learned Advocate waives service of notice of Admission on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, present appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5477/2015 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant workman and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court awarding Rs.25,000/as lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back-wages, continuity etc., the workman has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 3.1 That the appellant herein – workman raised an industrial dispute challenging his retrenchment/termination alleging inter alia that since last 3 years he was working as a sweeper in the Sanitation Department and that he was paid the monthly wages of Rs.490/-. It was also the case on behalf of the workman that in the last preceding year he has worked for not less than 240 days. It was the case on behalf of the workman that on 01.03.2000, his services have been terminated without following any procedure as required under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’). On the other hand it was the specific case on behalf of the GIDC that the workman was never employed even as a daily wager sweeper by the GIDC. It was the specific case on behalf of the GIDC that as and when there was a blockage in the GIDC Housing Quarters, he was called and was paid for the work done. It was also the case on behalf of the GIDC that in none of the year he completed 240 days. That the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Surendranagar which was numbered as Reference (LCS) No. 168/2000. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court held that in the last preceding year he worked for 240 days and therefore, there was breach of section 25F of the ID Act. That the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Surendranagar which was numbered as Reference (LCS) No. 168/2000. That on appreciation of evidence the learned Labour Court held that in the last preceding year he worked for 240 days and therefore, there was breach of section 25F of the ID Act. However, the learned Labour Court denied the reinstatement and back-wages and awarded Rs.25,000/- towards lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back-wages, continuity etc. 3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court denying reinstatement, back-wages and awarding Rs.25,000/- towards lumpsum compensation, after a period of approximately 4 years the workman approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 5477/2015. By impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the workman and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court awarding Rs.25,000/by way of lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back-wages, continuity etc. 3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition and confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court of awarding Rs.25,000/- by way of lumpsum compensation, the workman has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 4. Ms. Krishna Rawal, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant – workman and Shri R.D. Dave, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent – GIDC. 5. Ms. Rawal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge. She has submitted that once having found that there was a breach of section 25F of the ID Act, thereafter the reinstatement is imposed and therefore, both the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have committed error in not ordering reinstatement. In the alternative it is submitted by Ms. Rawal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – workman that as the workman worked for approximately 3 years, the learned Labour Court has materially erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- only towards lumpsum compensation. 5.1 Relying upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ms. Rawal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman has requested to enhance the amount of lumpsum compensation atleast to Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. 1. 5.1 Relying upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ms. Rawal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman has requested to enhance the amount of lumpsum compensation atleast to Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. 1. Raj Kumar Dixit vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar (2015) 9 SCC 345 2. Gauri Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 12 SCC 754 3. Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 4 SCC 458 4. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Parvez Akhtar 2015 (5) SLR 284 5. District Development Officer & Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia Civil Appeal Nos.1985719858 of 2017 6. Present Letters Patent Appeal is opposed by Shri R.D. Dave, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent – GIDC. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case as such both the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have rightly awarded Rs.25,000/- by way of lumpsum compensation. 6.1 It is submitted that as such the appellant was never engaged by the GIDC either as adhoc and/or even as a daily wager sweeper. It is submitted that as and when there was a blockage in the GIDC Housing Quarters, he was called by the concerned Executive Engineer to remove the blockage and as and when he was called, he was paid the charges. It is submitted that therefore as such he would not be workman and/or in employment of the GIDC at all. It is submitted that therefore as such there was no question of termination and/or retrenchment by the GIDC. It is submitted that infact the GIDC also challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 20323/2015 which is dismissed by the learned Single Judge by impugned order without deciding the petition preferred by the management on merits and which has been dismissed solely on the ground that the petition preferred by the workman is dismissed. It is submitted that therefore as such the GIDC was also aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court treating the workman as employee/workman of the GIDC. It is submitted that however as the amount involved is Rs.25,000/- only, the GIDC has not preferred the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition preferred by the GIDC. It is submitted that however as the amount involved is Rs.25,000/- only, the GIDC has not preferred the appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition preferred by the GIDC. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties at length. At the outset it is required to be noted and it is emerging from the vouchers produced by the workman it appears that as and when there was a blockage in the drainage in GIDC Housing Quarters, the appellant was called and was paid the charges for the same. Except the vouchers making the payment of charges to remove the blockage in the drainage, there is no material on record to show that at any point of time the appellant workman was employed by the GIDC either as adhoc and/or daily wager sweeper. Therefore, as such it is very debatable that whether workman can be said to be workman and/or employee and/or employed by the GIDC. However, considering the fact that petition preferred by the GIDC against the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court has been dismissed and the same is not carried further, we rest the matter there. Therefore, the next question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Labour Court is justified in awarding Rs.25,000/- towards lumpsum compensation? 7.1 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Labour Court ought to have awarded just and reasonable lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages. We are supported by the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha reported in (2014) 16 SCC 130 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 117. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra), in paras 33 to 35, the Honble 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. 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 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 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 daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)17]. Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage 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 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. 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 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.” 7.2 Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly considering the fact that even if the case on behalf of the appellant is accepted, in that case also, considering the fact that he has worked for a short tenure which lasted hardly for 3 years approximately (though not proved as the vouchers are of 1 year only) coupled with the fact that even the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court was challenged before this Court after approximately a period of 4 years and by the time approximately 17 to 18 years have passed, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court has committed any error in denying the reinstatement, back-wages etc. and in awarding the lumpsum compensation. We concur with the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court confirmed by the learned Single Judge denying back-wages, reinstatement, continuity etc. 8. Now, the next question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether it can be said that the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards lumpsum compensation is just lumpsum compensation? 8.1 It is the case on behalf of the workman relying upon the aforesaid decisions referred to hereinabove, the workman shall be entitled to atleast Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- by way of lumpsum compensation. However, it is required to be noted that there cannot be any straitjacket formula to award lumpsum compensation. 8.1 It is the case on behalf of the workman relying upon the aforesaid decisions referred to hereinabove, the workman shall be entitled to atleast Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- by way of lumpsum compensation. However, it is required to be noted that there cannot be any straitjacket formula to award lumpsum compensation. Everything depends upon the nature of work/duty, number of days worked, manner and method in which the workman was appointed etc. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding Rs.25,000/- only cannot be said to be just lumpsum compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the lumpsum compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, it can be said to be just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, when the workman does not seem to be appointed by the GIDC either as an adhoc and/or daily wager and as and when there was a blockage in the drainage of GIDC Housing Quarter, he was called and was paid the charges. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCS) No. 168/2000 confirmed by the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application No. 5477/2015 are hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the appellant herein – original workman shall be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back-wages etc. instead of RS.25,000/- is awarded by the learned Labour Court. The enhanced amount of lumpsum compensation to be deposited by the respondent GIDC with the Registry of this Court within a period of 4 weeks from today and on such deposit the same be paid to the concerned workman by Account Payee Cheque. Non-deposit of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (balance after deducting Rs.25,000/already paid) will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Present Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.