JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record and accept and allow this writ petition and the impugned Award dated 29.07.2008 passed by learned Labour Court, Alwar may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of relief part and Award may kindly be modified to the extent that petitioner is entitle for reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages. Any other order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner." 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner discharged his services on the post of Jaldhari from 10th May, 1979 to 19th May, 1988. Thereafter, his services were terminated and the same was challenged before the Labour Court, who granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Kashyap submits that compensation awarded is too meager and the petitioner has served from 1979 to 1988 which is about 10 years undisputedly. 4. Learned counsel for respondents has limited submission that learned Labour Court had observed in its judgment itself that 240 days preceding the date of termination were not working days for the petitioner thus he is not entitled for any relief for violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that claim of the petitioner was belatedly processed. Learned counsel for petitioner countered the point of 240 days not working just preceding to the termination order by precedent law of this court in the matter of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Vs. Kamlesh & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1312/1995, decided on 8th November, 1995. The relevant portion of which reads as under: "5. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner considered it proper not to challenge the above findings arrived at by the Labour Court and they restricted their contention on a legal question that for attracting the provisions of Section 25F, it was necessary for the workmen to have worked for 240 days in all the years including the last year of their service. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel is that the workmen did not actually work for 240 days in the last calendar year of their service, compliance of the conditions laid down in Section 25F was not necessary for retrenchment/termination of their service. 6. It is not disputed before me that termination of service of the workmen is retrenchment for the purposes of Section 25F. The only question, therefore, requires for consideration in this petition is: Whether termination of the workmen stands vitiated for non-compliance of Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Act? It would be convenient to set-out Section 25F to understand the controversy involved in the matter. Section 25F and Section 25B are incorporated in Chapter-VA dealing with lay off and retrenchment. A bare perusal of Section 25F reveals that a workman, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in the industry shall not be retrenched by the employer unless the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) are complied with. The conditions mentioned therein are mandatory in nature and conditions precedent for a valid retrenchment and their non-compliance would render the retrenchment invalid and inoperative. The object which the Legislature had in mind in making the two conditions obligatory and in constituting them as conditions precedent is obvious. The hardship resulting from retrenchment is partially redressed by these clauses. Clause (a) requires one month's notice in writing by the employer or payment of wages for the period of notice; while Clause (b) mandates to pay retrenchment compensation to be computed in the manner stated therein. One month's notice pay is required to be paid when the employer does not wish to serve the advance notice as required, but in lieu thereof he chooses to pay for one month's notice. Thus it is open to an employer not to give a notice but in that event it will be incumbent on him to pay one month's wages in lieu of the notice, that is for the period of notice. It is to precede the retrenchment and not follow it. In the instant case, if it is held that the workmen were in continuous service for not less than one year, their termination would be void for non compliance of Section 25F. This situation is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It is to precede the retrenchment and not follow it. In the instant case, if it is held that the workmen were in continuous service for not less than one year, their termination would be void for non compliance of Section 25F. This situation is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Clause (2) specially deals with a situation where a workman is not in continuous service as per the deeming fiction indicated in Sub-section (1) for a period of one year. Once it is found that workman is in continuous service, then it is wholly immaterial whether he has worked for a particular number of days in a particular year. The contingency which demands that the workman should work for a period of 240 days as provided by Clause (2) of Section 25B would come into play provided the workman is not in continuous service as required under Clause (1). Clause (2) opens with the words "where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1)". These words unmistakably indicate that the Legislature desired to cover cases even of those workmen who were not in continuous service as per Clause (1) for the purpose of granting retrenchment compensation. In other words, a workman after satisfying the test under Clause (1) of Section 25B need not further show that he has worked, during all the period he has been in the service of the employer, for 240 days in a year. 10. The claim of the workman in the present case would not attract Clause (2) unless it is held that they were not in continuous service for one year or more as contemplated by Clause (1). The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workmen were in continuous service for the years 1978 to 1985, as such, their case falls in Clause (1) of Section 25B and they are entitled to be dealt with under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The fact that they did not actually work for 240 days in the last calender year of their service, would not make any difference for attracting the provisions of Section 25F. In view of this, the Labour Court rightly held that there was non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act and that the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and void. In view of this, the Labour Court rightly held that there was non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act and that the retrenchment of the workmen was illegal and void. Viewed from this angle, the award of the Labour Court is correct and unassailable." 6. The respondents accept the facts that the petitioner was holding the post of Jaldhari in Class IV category from 1979 to 1988. Thus this court is of the opinion that issue of violation of Section 25F is made out and thus in just preceding year, 240 days may not have been completed but overall tenure is undisputed and the precedent law in the matter of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Vs. Kamlesh & Ors. (supra) covers the issue. 7. The respondents have not preferred any appeal against the award in question. The issue is dealt with in the following precedent law: 8. In Incharge Officer & Anr. Vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 , the Apex Court held in Para 2 and 7 of its judgment as under:- "2. Should an order of reinstatement automatically follow in a case where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to end in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short "the ID Act")? The course of the decisions of this Court in recent years has been uniform on the above question. 7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as a daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 6.9.1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum". 9. Similarly view has been taken by the Apex Court in its recent judgment rendered in Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum". 9. Similarly view has been taken by the Apex Court in its recent judgment rendered in Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, (2019) 4 SCC 307 - holding as under:- "8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and modify the impugned order to the extent indicated infra. 9. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officer and Anr. Vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298. 10. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra): "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 daily wage 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 non-payment 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 non-payment 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) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. 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 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." 11. Here is also a case where the respondent was held to have worked as daily wager or muster role employee hardly for a few years in R & B of the State; Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager; and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his alleged termination. 12. 12. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the respondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussed by this Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra). 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's case (supra). 14. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rs. One lakh) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim reinstatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute. 15. Let the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- be made by the appellant(State) to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The Award dated 09.05.2007 of the Labour Court in LCS No. 120 of 1994 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above." 10. In view of the above, the writ petition of workman is partly allowed and the compensation already awarded as Rs. 10,000/- from 1979 to 1988 is enhanced to Rs. 2 lac with 6% per annum interest as awarded in the award. The interest shall be from the date of filing of the writ petition. The writ petition of the State is accordingly dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be placed in each file.