JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs: "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned award dated 4.3.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by the Learned Labour Court, Ajmer in L.C.R. No. 6/98 may kindly be declared null and void and be quashed and set aside. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the statement of claim filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for. (iii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Class IV employees. (iv) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the your humble petitioner. (v) cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. The petitioner joined as a daily wage employee on the post of Class IV from 1.7.1992 and continued to discharge his duties in General Administrative Department of the respondent-State till 9.11.1995. The petitioner thereafter submitted the application through Under Postal Certificate on 13.11.1995 regarding his illness and on recovery when he returned on 2.1.1996 he submitted the medical certificate for the period from 20.11.1995 to 1.1.1996. Rather than permitting the petitioner to join, the respondents informed him that due to his unauthorized absence, his services have been terminated. 3. The petitioner thereafter submitted the application through Under Postal Certificate on 13.11.1995 regarding his illness and on recovery when he returned on 2.1.1996 he submitted the medical certificate for the period from 20.11.1995 to 1.1.1996. Rather than permitting the petitioner to join, the respondents informed him that due to his unauthorized absence, his services have been terminated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to the findings recorded by learned Labour Court in the impugned order dated 4.3.2004 which reads as follows: ^^foi{kh ds xokg Jh MhŒ,yŒ oekZ] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh] ,eŒMhŒ,lŒ ;wfuoZflVh] vtesj us fnukad 18-12-2003 dh ÁkFkhZ }kjk dh x;h ftjg ds nkSjku Á'u nks ds mRrj esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ÁkFkhZ us muds ;gka lsokeqfDr ds rqjar iwoZ dh ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa 223 fnu dk;Z fd;k Fkk rFkk jfookjh; vodk'kksa dks Hkh mldh dk;Z vof/k esa tksM+us ij mls ,d o"kZ ls dk;Zfnolksa 240 fnu ls vf/kd gks tkrs gS 2 foi{kh ds mDr xokg us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mUgsa ekywe ugha Fkk fd 240 fnu dh x.kuk esa jfookjksa rFkk jktif=r vodk'kksa dks Hkh tksM+k tkrk gSA foi{kh ds bl xokg us ftjg esa crk;k gS fd ÁkFkhZ dks LosPNk ls mlds }kjk dke dj vkuk can dj nsus ds dkj.k xzsP;qVh fn;k tkuk ;k ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk Fkk ,d ekg ds uksfVl dh ,ot esa ,d ekg dk osru fn;k tkuk t:jh ugha FkkA foi{kh ds bl xokg dk dguk gS fd mUgksaus u rks ÁkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk;k vkSj u gh ,slh fdlh lsokeqfDr ds f[kykQ ÁkFkhZ us foi{kh dks fyf[kr esa dksbZ uksfVl fn;kA** 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shri D.L. Verma who is representative of the respondent admitted the fact that the petitioner had discharged the duties for more than 240 days preceding the time of termination. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the leave certificate was duly submitted through Under Postal Certificate which is on record and the same was on record before the Learned Labour Court also alongwith joining report. Learned counsel further submits that once completion of more than 240 days is on record and has been admitted by the Labour Court as well as the respondents, then clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is made out. Learned counsel further submits that once completion of more than 240 days is on record and has been admitted by the Labour Court as well as the respondents, then clear violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is made out. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits as termination of his services is bad in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the petitioner willfully abandoned his services which is recorded by the learned Labour Court and his services were never terminated. He also submits that the alleged termination was agitated by a reference on 15.04.1998 and there was a gross delay in agitation and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present matter and the order passed by the learned Labour Court is in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that any violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 has not been found to be made out by the learned Labour Court and the learned Labour Court has rightly held that it was the petitioner who abandoned his services and thus, was not entitled for any protection under the Act of 1947. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner, the representative of the respondents and the Labour Court all have found the petitioner to have discharged duties from November, 1993 to October, 1995 which is about two years and it is a clear fact which establishes the petitioner to have worked for more than 240 days prior to his services coming to an end. This Court finds that the interpretation drawn by the learned Labour Court regarding the UPC is erroneous and the chain of events clearly indicates that the petitioner was always wanting to join services but was not permitted to do so. While perusing the UPC, the joining report and the admission made by the representative of the respondent namely: Shri D.L. Verma regarding continuance service for more than 240 days, in the opinion of this Court, the award passed was incorrect and actually there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 on the part of the respondents. While perusing the UPC, the joining report and the admission made by the representative of the respondent namely: Shri D.L. Verma regarding continuance service for more than 240 days, in the opinion of this Court, the award passed was incorrect and actually there is a violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 on the part of the respondents. In normal circumstances, if the termination order is held as bad, then the person is entitled for reinstatement but this Court has seen the latest precedent law, as under wherein compensation has been awarded in lieu of reinstatement. 7. The Apex Court in its recent judgment rendered in Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai, (2019) 4 SCC 307 , held 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 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. 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. State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (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. 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. 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. 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." 8. 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." 8. In light of the aforementioned precedent law, while allowing writ petition of the petitioner and quashing the impugned award dated 04.03.2004, as the petitioner not having discharged services since long time, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the petitioner be compensated by paying him compensation to the tune of Rs. One Lac with interest @ 6% from the date of award i.e. 04.03.2004 in lieu of reinstatement.