JUDGMENT : N. ANIL KUMAR, J. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 29.6.2017, in W.P(C) No.18248/2010 wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirmed the award dated 30.9.2009 of the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No.7/2008. The appellant -the Managing Committee of the Kerala Government Secretariat Canteen filed the above writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Kollam in I.D.No.7/2008 in which the Labour Court, on consideration of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that the termination of the second respondent/workman as per Ext.M2 order dated 22.8.2007 is illegal and unjustifiable and accordingly, directed the Management to reinstate him with continuity of service and to pay 50% of the backwages at the rate, at which he was drawing at the time of the denial of employment. 2. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. 3. The controversy involved in this appeal is confined to brief facts, which are mentioned hereinbelow to appreciate the same in the correct legal perspective. 4. The second respondent was working as a Cleaner in the Government Secretariat Canteen on daily wage basis and he did not turn up for work from 8.3.2007 onwards. Thereupon, a notice was issued to him on 18.4.2007 calling upon him to explain his unauthorised absence. Since he did not reply to the show cause notice, the management issued Ext.P7 memo on 2.7.2007. Despite the receipt of notice and memo, he did not give any reply to the managing committee of the canteen nor did he report for work. Confronted with the above circumstances, the Managing Committee of the canteen on 22.8.2007 resolved to terminate his services and Ext.P8 order was issued to him. 5. Nevertheless, the second respondent made a charter of demand before the District Labour Officer, Trivandrum, without submitting any such demand before the management. The District Labour Officer sent a report to the Government and the Government referred the alleged dispute to the Labour Court, Kollam for adjudication as per Ext.P9 order dated 18.3.2008. 6. The canteen in the Secretariat runs on a subsidised basis in accordance with Ext.P3 byelaws. The District Labour Officer sent a report to the Government and the Government referred the alleged dispute to the Labour Court, Kollam for adjudication as per Ext.P9 order dated 18.3.2008. 6. The canteen in the Secretariat runs on a subsidised basis in accordance with Ext.P3 byelaws. Under clause 6(b) of the revised byelaw appended, as per G.O.(P) No.182/89/GAD dated 11.8.1989, the Government was pleased to accord sanction for the reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the Kerala Government Secretariat Canteen. Later, the Government issued G.O(P) No.235/03/GAD dated 12.8.2003 regulating the service conditions and wages of the canteen employees of the Kerala Government Secretariat. In the objection submitted by the appellant before the Labour Court, it is specifically contended that the managing committee issued the proceedings in accordance with Ext.P4 the service conditions of the employees of the canteen being run by the Management, which are framed by the Government as per G.O(P) No.235/03/GAD dated 12.8.2003. As per Ext.P4, the employees of the canteen are appointed by the Managing Committee and their service conditions are prescribed by the Managing Committee from time to time with the prior concurrence of the Government. Proceedings on disciplinary action are governed under clauses 16 to 19 of Ext.P3 byelaw. Considering the nature of Ext.P3 byelaw, we think, it is appropriate to reiterate clauses 16 to 19 as hereinbelow:- “16. Penalties:--The following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed on a member of the service. Minor: (i) Fine not exceeding five percent of the aggregate pay for a period not exceeding six months. (ii) Recovery in full or in part of the loss caused to the canteen or canteen property by negligence or breach of orders. Major: (i) Suspension from service which shall not be a bar to future employment in the canteen. (ii) Dismissal from service, which shall be a bar to future employment in the canteen. 17. Disciplinary Authority.--(a) The authority competent to impose minor penalties on all the employees shall be the Secretary. The Managing Committee shall be the appellate authority. (b) The authority competent to impose major penalties will be the Managing Committee. Government shall be the appellate authority. 18. 17. Disciplinary Authority.--(a) The authority competent to impose minor penalties on all the employees shall be the Secretary. The Managing Committee shall be the appellate authority. (b) The authority competent to impose major penalties will be the Managing Committee. Government shall be the appellate authority. 18. Procedure for imposing minor penalties (i) Informing the member in service in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him an opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal and (ii) taking representation, if any, submitted by the member of service into consideration. 19. Procedure for imposing Major penalties.--(i)A memorandum indicating specific charges shall be drawn up and communicated to the delinquent member in writing. (ii) The member of the service shall reply in writing to the memorandum of charges within 10 days of issue of the memorandum of charges to him.” Clause (8) of Ext.P4 only provides show cause notice to the delinquent employee, explanation and reply within the time specified in the notice for appropriate action by the Managing Committee. 7. The Labour Court, however, by award dated 30.9.2009, answered the reference in the second respondent's favour, finding that the termination of workman while working as Cleaner in the canteen of the management, as per the order dated 22.8.2007, was illegal and unjustifiable and the management denied employment to him from 8.3.2007 unjustifiably. Resultantly, the Labour Court reinstated the respondent with continuity of service and 50% of the backwages at the rate at which he was drawing at the time of denial of employment. Thus, the management was directed to reinstate the workman and pay the backwages found to be entitled to him within one month from the date of pronouncement of the award i.e., 30.9.2009. 8. The appellant felt aggrieved filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge as per roster. By judgment, dated 29.6.2017, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award of the Labour Court, holding that the service conditions adopted by the Management cannot override the statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'). By judgment, dated 29.6.2017, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award of the Labour Court, holding that the service conditions adopted by the Management cannot override the statutory provisions in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act'). The learned Single Judge is of the view that the workman could have been removed from the service, if he had refused to attend the duty only after complying with the principles of natural justice and conducting a domestic enquiry. The appellant thus preferred this appeal. 9. Heard Smt.Molly Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.P.N.Santhosh, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Gopakumar.R.Thaliyal, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 10. We have heard the rival contentions between the parties and perused the materials placed on record. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the second respondent had not responded to the notice issued to him on 18.4.2007 asking him to show cause regarding his unauthorised absence on account of which Ext.P7 memo also was issued on 2.7.2007. To the said memo also, the second respondent did not give any reply. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that notice was issued in accordance with Ext.P4 service conditions and the termination of the second respondent was also in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. It is also argued that since Ext.P4 service conditions have been issued with respect to the employees engaged in the canteen, the same will prevail over the provisions of the I.D.Act which is a general law. It is further contended that the second respondent did not produce any material to show that he had completed 240 days of service in an year. Thus, it is contended that his service was not continuous. The sum and substance of the contention is that no inconsistency or repugnancy is noticed between the provisions of the I.D.Act and Ext.P4 service conditions which has resulted in the direct head on collision with each other which made it impossible to reconcile both the provisions in operation. In other words, it is submitted that Ext.P4 service conditions is not in conflict with the provisions of the I.D.Act. 11. In other words, it is submitted that Ext.P4 service conditions is not in conflict with the provisions of the I.D.Act. 11. As per the Scheme of the I.D.Act, no doubt, any person employed under a public or a private employer will be entitled to the benefit of the provisions if it is proved that the employee falls within the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and if he is employed in the establishment, which is covered by the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Act. There is another angle from which the issue requires examination. The I.D.Act contains a complete machinery for settlement and an adjudication of dispute between the employer and employee who are covered by the provisions of the Act. The rules provide for domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and to resolve the dispute between the workman and the employer. The respondent, who has been dismissed from service, whose service conditions are affected, has a legal right to challenge any such illegal action, and has a claim for adjudication of his dispute. The remedy provided under the I.D.Act is available to the workman of the canteen. Merely because a person is employed on daily wages, it cannot be stated that his services can be terminated at any time. 12. Ext.P8 proceedings would show that as per 17(b) of Ext.P3 bye-law and Government Order No.182/89 GAD dated 11.8.1989 and as per the power vested in the Managing Committee, the respondent was dismissed from service. No enquiry was conducted as contemplated under the Rules. Ext.P3 byelaw and Ext.P4 service conditions do not provide the remedies available to the workmen under the I.D.Act. In this connection, the factors which are required to be satisfied are that the dispute or difference must be between an employer and workman employed by him and must be connected with the employment or non-employment or term of employment or with the condition of labour. By virtue of Ext.P8, the respondent was terminated. When such a dispute arises, the Conciliation Officer appointed under Section 4 of the I.D.Act is duty bound to mediate in and promote the settlement of industrial dispute. If he fails in his attempt, report can be had to section 10 of the I.D.Act for having reference made by the appropriate Government of the dispute inter alia to the Labour court. If he fails in his attempt, report can be had to section 10 of the I.D.Act for having reference made by the appropriate Government of the dispute inter alia to the Labour court. Labour court is constituted under Section 7 of the Act for adjudication of the disputes arising out of matters specified in the Second Schedule to the Act and for performing any other functions which may be assigned to it under the Act. 13. Going by the scheme of the I.D.Act, it is clear that there exists direct conflict between Ext.P3 bye law, Ext.P4 service conditions and I.D.Act, but the I.D.Act is intended to be a complete code and therefore, Exts.P3 and P4 are inoperative to the extent in conflict with the I.D.Act. 14. In the case on hand, the second respondent was terminated as per Ext.P8. No notice was issued to the respondent before passing Ext.P8 as to why the second respondent shall not be terminated from the service. Access to justice is a constitutional right available to every citizen. Such a right is provided even to a criminal who is found guilty for serious offences. Before awarding maximum penalty of dismissal from service, no notice was issued to the second respondent in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In a case where the employer dismisses his employee without observing the principles of natural justice, the dismissal must be set aside only on that ground. However, the appellant did not make any request before the Labour Court seeking approval of the domestic enquiry held presumably for the reason that the workman did not file any claim statement before the Labour Court. In case the defect in domestic enquiry as projected by the workman had been taken as a defence in the claim statement before the Labour Court, certainly the management would have been able to seek leave of the Labour Court in the written statement itself to give evidence to support its action, in the alternative without prejudice to its rights and contentions as held by the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma(SMT) and another [ (2001) 5 SCC 433 ]. In the case at hand, no claim statement was filed by the workman as contemplated under the Act. 15. In the case at hand, no claim statement was filed by the workman as contemplated under the Act. 15. Having gone through the entire records of the case and in view of the nature of factual controversy, it being an admitted fact that the respondent was a daily wager during his tenure, coupled with the fact that 12 years have since passed from the date of Ext.P8 termination, we are of the view that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal [ (2014)7 SCC 177 ] would apply to the facts of this case. It is relevant to reproduce what the Supreme Court has held in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's case (supra) in paragraphs 33 to 35, which read as follows:- “33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full backwages, 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 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with backwages 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. Umadevi]. 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]. 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.” 16. Admittedly, the appellant was terminated from service as per Ext.P8 on 22.8.2007. Ext.P11 information produced in I.A.No.8901/2012 in the writ petition, issued by the Appellate Authority constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 would show that Sri.R.Sivakumar, T.C.27/2202, Chirakulam Road, Statue, Thiruvananthapuram has been appointed temporarily on daily wage basis at the rate of `300/-per day on working days in the Secretariat Garden from 8.11.2011 onwards. As per the award of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, the second respondent is entitled to get 50% of the backwages commencing from 8.3.2007 the date of denial of employment till 22.8.2007 at the rate specified in the charter of demand made by the second respondent. As per the award of the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, the second respondent is entitled to get 50% of the backwages commencing from 8.3.2007 the date of denial of employment till 22.8.2007 at the rate specified in the charter of demand made by the second respondent. The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 29.6.2017 directed the Management to reinstate him with continuity of service and to pay 50% of the backwages at the rate at which he was drawing at the time of denial of employment. In paragraph 3 of the award passed by the Labour Court, the second respondent's salary particulars are stated at the time of denial of employment by the Management. According to him, he had been paid salary at the rate of ` 2070/-per month after making deduction towards provident fund and E.S.I. Contribution. 17. When the case came up for hearing on 11.3.2019, Smt.Molly Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted certain particulars as to the rates of daily wages existed in the canteen in the years 2008 to 2011 and sought for time to produce it along with a memo, after serving a copy to the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The rates of daily wages prevailed in the Government Secretariat Canteen during the period from 2008 to 2011 was furnished by the learned counsel as submitted. The details are stated as herein below:- Year Rates of Daily Wages existed in the canteen 2008 Rs.120/- 2009 Rs.150/- 2010 Rs.180/- 2011 Rs.230/- Indisputably, the statement submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is beneficial for the workman. 18. We have taken note of the fact that the Labour Court has also found that the termination order dated 22.8.2007 was illegal and the management denied employment to the workman from 8.3.2007 unjustifiably and he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% of backwages. The question arises for consideration is as to whether the relief by way of reinstatement with backwages as ordered by the Labour Court is automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. The question arises for consideration is as to whether the relief by way of reinstatement with backwages as ordered by the Labour Court is automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. In view of the foregoing discussion made hereinabove, the termination of an employee without resorting to the procedure prescribed by law violating the principles of natural justice is illegal and is in contravention of the prescribed procedure under the I.D.Act. However, the workman failed to submit his claim statement before the Labour Court contending that no domestic enquiry was conducted violating the procedure. 19. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the relief of reinstatement, if at all as a daily wager could not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so. Keeping in view of the serious misconduct on the part of the worker, which forced the management to terminate his service; and that the workman was denied employment with effect from 8.3.2007, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the second respondent could have been directed to be reinstated in service. While exercising a discretionary jurisdiction reinstating the worker in service, all the factors including the availability of the job at present should weigh with the court for determination of such an issue. The Supreme Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of compensation in place of direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature, especially after 12 years from the date of denial of employment would subserve the ends of justice. In Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic),Bhopal v. Santoshkumar Seal and Others [2010 KHC 4288], the Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the said case, held as follows:- “6. In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with backwages 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 backwages in cases of such nature may be appropriate, (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi; (2007) 9 SCC 353 ;State of M.P. & Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Verma(2007)1 SCC 575; Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban [ (2007)9 SCC 748 ];Sita Ram & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute[ (2008) 5 SCC 75 ]; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai & Anr.[ (2006) 11 SCC 684 ]; Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar and another (2008)4 SCC 261 ] and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula & Anr. [ (2008) 1 SCC 575 ]. 7. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J.) in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr., (2009)15 SCC 327 , the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated : "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 backwages 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 backwages 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 S.25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full backwages 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". 20. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee". 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation to the second respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits in accordance with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's case (supra). Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, we consider it just and proper to award a sum of `1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to the second respondent in lieu of his right to claim reinstatement as a daily wager in full and final satisfaction of the dispute. We also make it clear that the aforesaid payment is in addition to the 50% wages due to the second respondent from 8.3.2007 to 22.8.2007 and full wages due to the second respondent from 23.8.2007 to 8.11.2011 in accordance with the rates admitted by the workman for the year 2007 and the statement filed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court as stated supra. 21. Let the payment be made by the appellant to the second respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum payable from the date of this judgment till payment to the respondent. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd.29.6.2017 and the award of Labour Court, Kollam dated 30.09.2009 are modified to the aforesaid extent.