JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum Authority under Jharkhand Shops and Establishment Act in Case No. 04/J.S./2007 whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate respondent no.3 with full back wages and consequential benefits also. 3. As per the pleadings and arguments, it appears that petitioner has been engaged as “ayah” by the petitioner establishment on 30.01.2000 and as per the petitioner establishment, she has left the work w.e.f. 14.08.2005. 4. On the other hand, the respondent-worker has claimed that she has been removed without any order. 5. In view of the above dispute, the respondent-employee has filed a petition before the Authority under Jharkhand Shops & Establishment Act, 2002. The establishment has noticed and after completion of pleading following issues have been framed for determination by the concerned Authority. Issue are as follows:- okn lquokbZ ds dze esa nkok okn dk voyksdu] mHk; i{kksa }kjk nkf[ky fd, x, dkxtkrksa ,oa izLrqr fyf[kr lk{; ds vkyksd esa fuEu fcUnq fopkj.kh; gSa%& 1- D;k vey la?k ,d O;olkf;d ,oa lkekftd izfr"Bku gS \ 2- D;k vey la?k >kj[k.M nwdku ,oa izfr"Bku vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vkPNkfnr gSa \ 3- D;k vkosfndk Jherh /keZ'khyk nsoh fnukad&13-01- 2000 ls 14 -08-05 rd ^^vk;k^^ ds in ij dk;Zjr Fkh \ 4- D;k Jherh /keZ'khyk nsoh LosPNk ls dk;Z NksM+ nh gS vFkok mUgsa tcju dk;Z ls foeqDr dj fn;k x;k gS \ ;fn mUgsa tcju dk;Z ls foeqDr dj fn;k x;k gks rks D;k og iquZLFkkiu dh vf/kdkjh gSa \ 6. So far as issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, finding has been recorded that petitioner is covered under the term establishment and as such, claim petition is maintainable before the Authority under Jharkhand Shops & Establishment Act. 7. So far issue nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, finding has been recorded that she has been removed by the employer without assigning any reason and as such, removal is not in accordance with law and, accordingly, removal has been declared illegal. On the strength of above finding the order of reinstatement with back wages has been passed. 8. 7. So far issue nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, finding has been recorded that she has been removed by the employer without assigning any reason and as such, removal is not in accordance with law and, accordingly, removal has been declared illegal. On the strength of above finding the order of reinstatement with back wages has been passed. 8. Counsel for the petitioner-establishment relying upon Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 has submitted that since the present application has been filed after prescribed period of limitation i.e., 90 days and as such, the claim petition was not maintainable. The relevant Section is quoted hereinbelow:- “26. Notice of the dismissal or discharge – (1) … (2) Every employee, dismissed or discharged or whose employment is otherwise terminated, may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner to, a prescribed authority within 90 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge or termination of employment on the one or more of the following grounds, namely : - (i) there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services; or (ii) no notice was served on him as required by sub-section (1); or (iii) he has not been guilty of any misconduct as held by the employer; or (iv) no compensation as prescribed in sub-section (1) was paid to him before dispensing with his service.” 9. From mere perusal of the above section, it is evident that the application has to be made within 90 days from the date of receipt of order of discharge or termination of employment. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no order of termination and as such, the period of limitation will not start. It is golden rule that while interpreting any Section normal meaning has to be given without adding or subtractive any words. If argument of petitioner is accepted then the phrase “90 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge or termination of employment” will become redundant. 10. Admittedly, in the present case severance of relation is dated 14.08.2005 and the application has been moved on 30.3.2007 but since there is no order of termination issued by the petitioner-employer and as such, the plea of limitation is not available to the employer. 11. 10. Admittedly, in the present case severance of relation is dated 14.08.2005 and the application has been moved on 30.3.2007 but since there is no order of termination issued by the petitioner-employer and as such, the plea of limitation is not available to the employer. 11. The petitioner-employer has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Chandu Prasad Gupta S/o Sri Nanku Prasad Gupta Vs. M/s Ranchi Handloom Emporium Pvt. Ltd. Through Sri Prakash Chandra Sethi, Proprietor dated on 01.09.2017 in W.P.(L) No. 5518 of 2009. 12. On the strength of the above judgment, the argument has been advanced that in the fact of the present case instead of reinstatement a compensation should be awarded to do justice with the parties. 13. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-employee has submitted that since the claim petition has been filed before appropriate authority in accordance with law and further finding has been recorded that non-assignment of work or not allowing employee to work w.e.f. 14.08.2005 is illegal and accordingly, the order of reinstatement with full back wages has been passed. 14. It is admitted position that the respondent-employee was working as “ayah” with the petitioner-establishment w.e.f. 30.1.2000. She was getting monthly salary of Rs. 800/- which has been subsequently enhanced to Rs.1,200/-. Respondent-employee has worked with the establishment till 14.08.2005 and since then, she is out of employment. she was working as a casual/daily wager. 15. Para 13 of the judgment reported in 2018 (12) SCC 298 District Development Officer and Another Vrs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, is quoted hereinbelow:- 13. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in BSNL4: (SCC p. 189, paras 33-35) “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. 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 non-payment 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 regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Uma devi (3)5]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation 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. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. 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.” 16. Thus, judicial philosophy has been developed that if termination of daily wager worker has been found illegal due to procedural defect, instead of reinstatement compensation should be granted. The reason has been assigned that in case of reinstatement employer is at liberty to dispense with the service after paying the compensation as required. 17. Thus, keeping in mind the legal provisions and consequences, especially in case of daily wager, it has been held that compensation is more appropriate relief than reinstatement with back wages. 18. In view of judicial pronouncement and fact that the petitioner had worked for 05 years at the salary of Rs.1,200/-, in the opinion of court to meet ends of justice, the petitioner-employer is directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 19. With the above modification of the impugned order dated 30.09.2011 in Case No. 04/J.S./2007 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum Authority under Jharkhand Shops and Establishment, Act, the present writ petition is, hereby, partially allowed. 20. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.