JUDGMENT : G.S. Ahluwalia, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 30/3/2012 passed by Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in COC No.15/A/I.D. Act/2008 (Reference). 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondent was engaged as a Sweeper in the year 1993, but he was never engaged on the sanctioned or vacant post. As the work of Sweeper was not available and was not required in the establishment of the petitioner, therefore, he was removed from service w.e.f. 5/4/1999 by an oral order. The respondent filed an application before the Conciliation Officer on the allegations that he had worked from the year 1993 till 1995 continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year, however, no show-cause notice was issued neither any retrenchment compensation was paid nor one month salary in lieu of the notice was paid to the respondent, therefore, his removal from service amounts to illegal retrenchment. 3. On failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was forwarded to the appropriate Government and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, which was received by the Labour Court on 7/2/2008. After receiving the notice, respondent filed statement of claim before the Labour Court. The petitioner also filed its written statement. However, the Labour Court by impugned award dated 30/3/2012 has held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and his removal from service was not valid and, accordingly, it was directed that the respondent be reinstated. 4. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court various submissions were made by the counsel for the petitioner, however, he has confined his submission to the question of reinstatement only. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1999, however, he approached the Conciliation Officer on 26/2/2007. The conciliation proceedings had failed subsequent thereto and, accordingly, reference was made, which was received by the Labour Court in the month of March, 2008. 5. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent on 18/12/2008 and the award has been passed on 30/3/2012. The conciliation proceedings had failed subsequent thereto and, accordingly, reference was made, which was received by the Labour Court in the month of March, 2008. 5. The statement of claim was filed by the respondent on 18/12/2008 and the award has been passed on 30/3/2012. Accordingly, it is submitted that under these circumstances, where the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1999 and he approached the Conciliation Officer for the first time in the year 2007 and the award has been passed on 30/3/2012, therefore, instead of directing for reinstatement, the Labour Court should have directed for payment of monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement. 6. Per contra, the dates have not been disputed by the counsel for the respondent. It is fairly conceded that the respondent had worked as a Safai Karmchari from the year 1993 till 1999 and he approached the Conciliation Officer on 26/2/2007 and the reference was made in the year 2008. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The counsel for the respondent could not explain the reasons for not approaching the Conciliation Officer within the reasonable time. In the present case, the respondent had approached the Conciliation Officer on 26/2/2007 and no explanation has been given for keeping quiet for eight long years after the termination of his service. Even otherwise, the services of the respondent were discontinued in the year 1999 and 20 long years have passed. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 has held as under: " 9. In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. vs. Tribhuban, Sita Ram vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai, GDA vs. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula.)" 10. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. vs. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. vs. Tribhuban, Sita Ram vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai, GDA vs. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula.)" 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board vs. Laxmi Kant Gupta reported in (2009) 16 SCC 562 has held as under:- "9. In U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. vs. Uday Narain Pandey this Court referred to a large number of its earlier decisions on the question as to the relief to be granted to the workman when his termination of service is found to be illegal. It was noted that while the earlier view of the Court was that if an order of termination was found to be illegal, normally the relief to be granted should be reinstatement with full back wages. However, as noted in the various decisions referred to in the above decision, with the passage of time it came to be realised that an industry should not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all. This Court after discussing various earlier decisions held that the relief to be granted is discretionary and not automatic. It was pointed out in the aforesaid decision of this Court in U.P. State Brassware Corpn. that a person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. The changes brought out by the subsequent decisions of this Court, probably having regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the Government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing was evident. Hence, now there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages, and instead the Labour Court can award compensation. The same view was followed by this Court in Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mamni (AIR vide paras 15 to 17). 10. Thus it is evident that there has been a shift in the legal position which has been modified by this Court and there is no hard-and-fast principle now that on the termination of service being found to be illegal, the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages. Ltd. v. Mamni (AIR vide paras 15 to 17). 10. Thus it is evident that there has been a shift in the legal position which has been modified by this Court and there is no hard-and-fast principle now that on the termination of service being found to be illegal, the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages. Compensation can be awarded instead, at the discretion of the Labour Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case." 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Incharge Officer and another v. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 has held as under:- "3. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, delivering the judgment of this Court, one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) noticed some of the recent decisions of this Court, namely, U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, State of M.P. vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn. vs. Tribhuban, Sita Ram vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai, GDA vs. Ashok Kumar, and Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 & 335, paras 7 & 14) "7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. * * * 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. * * * 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." 4. Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. vs. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated: (SCC p. 777, para 11) "11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub serve the ends of justice." 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that where the respondent himself had kept quiet for eight long years after the termination of his service and 20 long years have passed after his termination of service, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of directing reinstatement of the respondent, the monetary compensation would be sufficient. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the respondent by way of monetary compensation. 14. With aforesaid modification, the award dated 30/3/2012 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in COC No.15/A/I.D. Act/2008 (Reference) is hereby affirmed. 15. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.