JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "(i) this Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed the present Writ Petition by an appropriate writ order or direction that the award dated 27.05.2016 (Annex.-1) passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jaipur in CGIT case no. 57/12 may kindly be suitably modified by holding the petitioner entitled for his reinstatement instead of compensation by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent no. 2 may be kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with full back wages and all other consequential benefits till the end of 2014 and the verbal termination order passed by the respondent no. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent no. 1, be directed to absorb the petitioner in its establishment on any post. (iv) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent no. 1, be directed to direct the new contractor for taking the petitioner on duty, as the petitioner possesses requisite experience and further the work which was being performed by the petitioner is still into existence. 2. The brief facts as noticed by this court are that the petitioners were appointed by the respondents in 1996 and continued the job of Train Side Vending uptill 2011. On 8th January, 2011, the services of the petitioners were retrenched verbally without following the due process of law. The matter thereafter went before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in which a detailed discussion was made. Some relevant portion of the judgment particularly Para 16 reads as follows : "16. As documentary evidence, respondent no. 2 has filed documents totalling 23 pages on 30.1.2014. The case has proceeded ex-parte against the respondent no. 2 w.e.f. 1.10.2014. Application of respondent no. 2 for cancelling the order deed 1.10.2014 for proceeding ex-parte has been rejected on 7.1.2015. Since, then case has proceeded ex-parte against respondent no. 2. No oral evidence has been adduced by respondent no. 2 because of case proceeding ex-parte against him. Respondent no. 2 thereafter has participated only at the final hearing of the argument on 12.1.2016 & 4.2.2016." Para 31 to 33 also reads as follows: "31. Since, then case has proceeded ex-parte against respondent no. 2. No oral evidence has been adduced by respondent no. 2 because of case proceeding ex-parte against him. Respondent no. 2 thereafter has participated only at the final hearing of the argument on 12.1.2016 & 4.2.2016." Para 31 to 33 also reads as follows: "31. About the nature of relief to be given to the applicant it has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that applicant should be reinstated with full back wages & continuity in service. Against this it has been argued by learned representative of Railway that Railway is not responsible in any manner to provide engagement to the applicant in railway. It has been argued by learned representative of M/s. Gulab Rai & Co. that company is no more on business of the railway on contract & the premises of the railway has also been vacated & handed over to the railway, hence, applicant can't be reinstated in service. From perusal of the file it is evident that Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court (Jodhpur) has vide order dated 15.12.2014 has ordered M/s. Gulab Rai & Co. is having any other premises elsewhere where business of present nature or any other nature is carried out. As per finding given above it is clear that action of the Management of M/s. Gulab Rai & Co., Jodhpur in termination the services of applicant is unjustified & illegal & in violation of provisions of 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. The legal position is undisputed that in case of non-compliance of section 25-F applicant workman may be reinstated with other consequential benefits but in fact & circumstances of the present case where reinstatement is impracticable it appears just & proper to award suitable compensation to the applicant to meet the end of justice. 32. The year of birth of applicant is 1974 in W-16 ESI card which means that applicant is of the age of above 37 years at the time of termination from service & he has been inducted in the service on 22.1.1996 as per statement of claim. Thus, he has completed about 14 years & 11 months of service. Applicant has not mentioned in statement of claim that what was his salary at the time of entry into the service & at the time of his termination from the service. Thus, he has completed about 14 years & 11 months of service. Applicant has not mentioned in statement of claim that what was his salary at the time of entry into the service & at the time of his termination from the service. In above fact & circumstance, I am of the view that an award of a lump sum compensation amount of Rs. 20000/- to the applicant to be paid by respondent no. 2 will be sufficient to meet the end of justice. 33. In the result, the reference answered in affirmative in favour of applicant workman & it is held that the action of the management of M/s. Gulab Rai & Co., Jodhpur in termination the services of Sh. Om Prakash Sharma S/o. Sh. Bhagawat Dutt Sharma w.e.f. 8.1.2011 is illegal & unjustified. Therefore, M/s. Gulab Rai & Co. is directed to pay as compensation to the applicant Sh. Om Prakash Sharma a sum of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) instead & in lieu of his reinstatement in service. The payment shall be made within two months from the date of publication of award failing which the applicant shall be entitled to the amount of compensation with 8% simple interest per annum. Management of North Western Railway, Jodhpur is not responsible for termination of that services of Sh. Om Prakash Sharma. Application of the applicant is accordingly allowed." 3. Learned counsel for petitioners Shri Kunal Rawat submits that once the court below had come to the conclusion that there was a clear violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 then awarding meager compensation instead of reinstatement was itself unjust. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that petitioners are poor workmen but served as Train side Vending for about 14 years and such meager compensation is detrimental to their future and their right to livelihood. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners also submits that if the Railways has some vacancies and same job akin to the job being performed by the petitioners then they should also consider them on part-time basis or contractual basis. 6. Learned counsel for Railways submits that since they have no grievance against the order granting compensation to be paid by respondent No. 2, therefore, they have no submissions to make against the impugned order. 7. 6. Learned counsel for Railways submits that since they have no grievance against the order granting compensation to be paid by respondent No. 2, therefore, they have no submissions to make against the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Shri Puneet Singhvi however vehemently submitted that respondent No. 2 was a contractor but failed in his contract due to the conduct of the Railways and was not performing the duties of Train side vending after 2011 and thus he submits that he is not liable to make any payments on violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the business of the respondent No. 2 has closed down and he does not have any source to make good any of the prayers of the petitioners either reinstatement or compensation. 9. Learned counsel for respondents has drawn attention of the court to the order passed by the Labour Court on 21.03.2012 in the matter of one Kailash Sharma which reads as follows: "41. About the nature of relief to be given to the applicant it has been argued by learned representative of the applicant that applicant should be reinstated with full back wages & continuity in service. Against this it has been argued by learned representative of Railway that Railway is not responsible in any manner to provide engagement to the applicant in railway. It has been argued by learned representative of M/s. Gulab Rai & Co. that company is no more on business of the railway on contract & the premises of the railway has also been vacated & handed over to the railway, hence, applicant can't be reinstated in service : From perusal of the file it is evident that Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court (Jodhpur) has bide order dated 15.12.2014 has ordered M/s. Gulab Rai & Co. to vacate the premises by 23.12.2014 & hand over the possession & canteen to railway which has been complied by the company. There is no evidence on record to show that M/s. Gulab Rai & Co. is having any other premises elsewhere where business of present nature or any other nature is carried out. As per finding given above it is clear that action of the management of M/s. Gulab Rai & Company in terminating the services of applicant is justified & legal. is having any other premises elsewhere where business of present nature or any other nature is carried out. As per finding given above it is clear that action of the management of M/s. Gulab Rai & Company in terminating the services of applicant is justified & legal. There is no violation of provisions of 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act in terminating the services of applicant by M/s. Gulabrai & company. 42. In the result, the reference is answered in affirmative against the applicant workman & it is held that the action of the management of Ms. Gulabrai and company, Refreshment Room Contractor, Railway station, Jodhpur (a contractor of North Western Railway, Jodhpur) in terminating the services of Shri Kailash Sharma S/o. Shri Jawari Lal Sharma w.e.f. 3.12.2007 is legal and justified. It is further held that the applicant Sh. Kailash Sharma is not entitled to any relief. Application of the applicant is accordingly dismissed." 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that impugned award is justified and lawful. This court has taken note of the fact that no appeal has been preferred against the award dated 27th May, 2016 by the respondent No. 1 or 2. This court has also taken note of the fact that learned Labour Court has recorded that there was no evidence in defence brought by the respondent No. 2 despite several opportunities. The categorical finding of violation of Section 25F has been arrived at by the Labour Court while going into detailed facts of the case and the award is absolutely justified on merits. This court finds that reinstatement on account of non-compliance of Section 25F may not be possible due to future of the contract of respondent No. 2 being uncertain and therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly awarded the compensation. However, the amount of compensation is far too less in comparison to the compensation being awarded on violation of Section 25F. 11. 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")? 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". 12. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. Once this court stands by the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of violation of Section 25F and there is no challenge to the award in question by either of the respondents then it will be appropriate to allow the writ petitions to the extent of substituting the meager compensation with the standard compensation of Rs. 1 lac. The petitioners shall be further permitted to make any representation to the respondents regarding their future employment which shall be considered by the respondents strictly in accordance with law. The order shall be given effect to by the respondents within a period of six months from today. 14. A copy of this order be placed in each file.