JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Employer is the appellant, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.07.2009, passed in W.P. (L) No. 2452 of 2001, by the learned Single Judge, whereunder the award dated 20.02.2001, rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 128 of 1991 directing the management-petitioner to reinstate the concerned workman but without back wages has been upheld. The writ petition has been dismissed. 3. We have gone through the pleadings on the record and also perused the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. S.K. Laik, has also defended the impugned judgment and submitted now since the workman has reached the age of superannuation and cannot be reinstated, the relief granted by learned Tribunal may suitably be moulded. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad was asked to adjudicate the following reference: “Whether the action of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. was justified in canceling the office Order No. BCCL/PA-5/Prom/TR/ Watcher/82/7478-388 dated 19/20.1.82 vide their office Order No. BCCL/PA-5/Prom-Jr. Watcher-82 dated 7.10.82 regarding placement of Aslam Shadmani and consequently terminating his service is justified? If so, what relief the concerned workman is entitled?” Reference was made by the Central Government through a notification dated 13.11.1991. The learned Industrial Tribunal came to finding that concerned workman was appointed as Security Follower on 07.11.1981 and was then placed as Junior Watcher in Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 20.01.1982 along with 13 other employees and was regularized as such. Suddenly, by order dated 07.10.1982, the order of regularization was withdrawn and the workman was removed from the service. The workman contended that no notice was issued to him nor was any pay in lieu of the notice period given before his removal. His sudden removal was contrary to the provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and also in violation of principles of natural justice. After failing to elicit response from the management despite several representations, the workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner raising the industrial dispute. On failure of the conciliation, the appropriate Government made the reference in question for adjudication. 5. The management contested the claim on the ground of inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute in the year 1991. After failing to elicit response from the management despite several representations, the workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner raising the industrial dispute. On failure of the conciliation, the appropriate Government made the reference in question for adjudication. 5. The management contested the claim on the ground of inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute in the year 1991. It is also contended that the concerned workman had not completed 240 days to attract the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the regularization of the concerned workman was made contrary to the prescribed rules of the Company, there was no illegality in withdrawing the order of regularization. Both the parties had led their respective claim, which was marked as Exhibits. 6. Learned tribunal on the basis of evidence on record came to a considered finding that the concerned workman had admittedly worked for 8 months and 16 days, whereas, the management had not produced any attendance register to show that he was absent from his duty during this period. Learned tribunal also found that the management had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act nor given any opportunity to show cause before cancelling the order of his posting as Junior Watcher. The relationship of employer and employee had been established on the basis of the admitted facts and documents. Delay, if any, on the part of the workman, could not deny him the relief and the award could be moulded in the interest of justice. 7. The learned Single Judge considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also appreciated the findings recorded by the learned tribunal and held that the workman had been able to prima facie discharge the onus that he had rendered service for about 11 months which is more than 240 days. There was no direct material or evidence by the management to rebut the said finding. The learned Single Judge did not consider it proper to deny the relief to the workman on the ground that dispute was raised after some delay. It also noticed that the claim of compensation in lieu of employment was not raised before the learned tribunal and as such the award cannot be held to be illegal for not giving finding in that regard. Awarding compensation in lieu of service depends on facts and circumstances of each case. It also noticed that the claim of compensation in lieu of employment was not raised before the learned tribunal and as such the award cannot be held to be illegal for not giving finding in that regard. Awarding compensation in lieu of service depends on facts and circumstances of each case. There is no straight jacket formula that in all cases of delay in raising dispute, compensation is to be allowed in lieu of employment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent- workman has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Employers, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and Others, 2000 (87) FLR 712 in which the Apex Court declined to interfere with the award made by the tribunal granting 50% of the back wages, apart from the reinstatement in service. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Narain vs. M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Juhi and Another, AIR 2016 SC 1248 , where also Apex Court had been pleased to hold that the workman is entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation. 9. In the instant case, the workman has attained the age of superannuation in the month of August, 2017, as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent. From the order sheet of the appeal it does not appear that there was any stay of the impugned award or the judgment. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent in the light of the pleadings on record. We do not find any reason to dislodge the findings of the learned Single Judge and the learned Labour Tribunal on the factum of the period of services rendered by the workman under the management of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited between 07.11.1981 till he was removed by order dated 07.10.1982. Both the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have rendered consistent findings that the workman had completed more than 240 days of engagement during the said period. Both the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have rendered consistent findings that the workman had completed more than 240 days of engagement during the said period. As such, there was a mandate to comply with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under:- “25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:- (a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: [***] (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months. (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.]” 11. It is not in dispute either that no notice in writing was served upon the workman indicating the reasons for his retrenchment nor any wages for the period of notice were paid to him. The appellant has on his part tried to make out a case that the office order dated 20.1.1982 was not an appointment order but merely a placement order which was withdrawn on 07.10.1982. The order being illegal, no consequential benefits of regularization in service could have been flown out of it. It is, however, not in dispute that the workman had at best worked for a period of 11 months between 07.11.1981 till 07.10.1982. 12. The order being illegal, no consequential benefits of regularization in service could have been flown out of it. It is, however, not in dispute that the workman had at best worked for a period of 11 months between 07.11.1981 till 07.10.1982. 12. On appreciation of the entire materials on record and in the light of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 relating to grant of compensation as a relief in lieu of reinstatement on account of wrongful termination of service in violation of Section 25(F) and Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, we are of the considered view that ends of justice should be served if the appellant is directed to make a payment of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it would carry interest @ 9% per annum till it is paid. 13. The principles laid down by the Apex Court at paragraph nos. 27 and 28 in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 are profitably quoted hereunder: “27. 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. 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. 28. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in BSNL vs. Man Singh. 28. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in BSNL vs. Man Singh. That was a case where the workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984-1985, were terminated without following Section 25-F. The industrial dispute was raised after five years and although the Labour Court had awarded re-instatement 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 paras 4 and 5 of the Report this Court held as under: (SCC p. 559) “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.” 14. As a result, the impugned order and the award rendered by the learned labour tribunal are interfered with to the extent that the appellant-employer, would be liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- as indicated above, in lieu of the reinstatement in service. 15. This appeal is partly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated herein above.