DECISION : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. There was inordinate delay in raising the dispute by the respondent. Hence, the appellant was liable to be paid only compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra L. Jain and Others Vs. Indore Development Authority and Others (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 639, decided on November 22, 2004, wherein, it has been held as under:- "This case involves 31 employees. A distinction is sought to be made by Dr. Dhawan that out of them 27 had been appointed to a project and not in a project. The distinction although appears to be attractive at the first blush but does not stand a moment's scrutiny. As noticed hereinbefore, the High Court's observation remained unchallenged, that the project was to be financed by ODA. The project was indisputably to be executed by the Indore Development Authority; and for the implementation thereof, the appointments had to be made by it. If the Appellants were appointed for the purpose of the project, they would be deemed to have been appointed therefor and only because such appointments had been made by the Respondent would by itself not entitle them to claim permanency. The life of the project came to an end on 30.6.1997. The maintenance job upon completion thereof had been taken over by Indore Municipal Corporation. The Appellants were aware of the said fact and, thus, raised an alternative plea in their statements of claims. The Labour Court could not have granted any relief to them as prayed for, as Indore Municipal Corporation is a separate juristic person having been created under a statute. Such a relief would have been beyond the scope and purport of the reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government. Furthermore, the Indore Municipal Corporation was not a party and, thus, no employee could be thrust upon it without its consent." 3. Such a relief would have been beyond the scope and purport of the reference made to the Labour Court by the State Government. Furthermore, the Indore Municipal Corporation was not a party and, thus, no employee could be thrust upon it without its consent." 3. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur Vs. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 294, decided on April 3, 2017, wherein, it has been held as under:- "The respondent workman had worked under the Appellant for a period of two years and three months whereafter he was terminated on 1-6-1994. Judicial opinion has been consistent that if the termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet the ends of justice. The respondent workman in the present case had worked for a period of two years and three months and that apart he had approached the Labour Court after 13 years. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order of the Labour Court and the High Court ought to be modified by granting compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement without back wages as ordered. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of compensation will be paid within a period of six weeks from today." 4. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of District Development Officer and Anr. Vs. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of compensation will be paid within a period of six weeks from today." 4. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of District Development Officer and Anr. Vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 298, decided on November 28, 2017, wherein, it has been held as under:- "Having gone through the entire record of the case and further keeping in view the nature of factual controversy, findings of the Labour Court, the manner in which the respondent fought this litigation on two fronts simultaneously, namely, one in the Civil Court and the other in the Labour Court in challenging his termination order and seeking regularization in service, which resulted in passing the two conflicting orders - one in respondent's favour (Labour Court) and the other against him (Civil Court) and lastly, it being an admitted fact that the respondent was a daily wager during his short tenure, which lasted hardly two and half years approximately and coupled with the fact that 25 years have since passed from the date of his alleged termination, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal [ (2014) 7 SCC 177 ] would aptly apply to the facts of this case and we prefer to apply the same for disposal of these appeals. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (SCC P. 189, paras 33-35): "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 25-F 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 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]. 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." We have taken note of one fact here that the Labour Court has also found that the termination is bad due to violation of Section 25-G of the Act. 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." We have taken note of one fact here that the Labour Court has also found that the termination is bad due to violation of Section 25-G of the Act. In our opinion, taking note of overall factual scenario emerging from the record of the case and having regard to the nature of the findings rendered and further the averments made in the SLP justifying the need to pass the termination order, this case does not fall in exceptional cases as observed by this Court in Para 35 of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case (supra) due to finding of Section 25-G of the Act recorded against the appellant. In other words, there are reasons to take out the case from exceptional cases contained in Para 35 because we find that the appellant did not resort to any kind of unfair practice while terminating the services of the respondent. In view of forgoing 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 re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited case (supra). Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim re-instatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute. Let the payment of Rs.2,50,000/- be made by the appellant(State) to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable from the date of this judgment till payment to the respondent." 5. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 Supreme Court Cases 177, decided on December 11, 2013, wherein, it has been held as under:- "The learned counsel for the appellant referred to two judgments wherein this Court granted compensation instead of reinstatement. In BSNL vs. Man Singh, this Court has held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary that relief of reinstatement be also given as a matter of right. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty, it was held that those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In this judgment of Shankar Shetty (supra), this trend was reiterated by referring to various judgments, as is clear from the following discussion: (SCC PP 127-28 paras 2-4) "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. 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. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, M.P. Admn v. Tribhuban, Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, GDA v. Ashok Kumar and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and stated as follows: (Jagbir Singh case, SCC pp. 330 & 335 paras 7 & 14) "It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decision 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. 330 & 335 paras 7 & 14) "It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decision 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. 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." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. v. Santosh Kumar Seal, wherein this Court stated: (SCC p. 777, para 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." 21. In Deptt. Of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb the Court emphasized that automatic direction for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages is not contemplated. He was at best entitled to one months' pay in lieu of one month's notice and wages of 15 days of each completed year of service as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He could not have been directed to be regularized in service or granted/given a temporary status. He was at best entitled to one months' pay in lieu of one month's notice and wages of 15 days of each completed year of service as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He could not have been directed to be regularized in service or granted/given a temporary status. Such a scheme has been held to be unconstitutional by this Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar. Coop. Societies and State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that likewise, even when reinstatement was ordered, it does not automatically follow that full back wages should be directed to be paid to the workman. He drew the attention of this Court to Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha and Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan. It is dear 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 victimization, 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 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 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. 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 regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi. Thus when he cannot claim regularization 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. 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 regularized 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. Applying the aforesaid principles, let us discuss the present case. We find that the respondent was working as a daily wager. Moreover, the termination took place more than 11 years ago. No doubt, as per the respondent he had worked for 15 years. However, the fact remains that no direct evidence for working 15 years has been furnished by the respondent and most of his documents are relatable to two years i.e. 2001 and 2002. Therefore, this fact becomes relevant when it comes to giving the relief. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that the need of lineman in the telephone department has been drastically reduced after the advancement of technology. For all these reasons, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that the need of lineman in the telephone department has been drastically reduced after the advancement of technology. For all these reasons, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In Man Singh (supra) which was also a case of BSNL, this Court had granted compensation of Rs.2 Lakh to each of the workmen when they had worked for merely 240 days. Since the respondent herein worked for longer period, we are of the view that he should be paid a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. This compensation should be paid within 2 months failing which the respondent shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment. The award of CGIT is modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The respondent shall also be entitled to the cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in this appeal." 6. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Ltd. Vs. Mukund Staff & Officers Association (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 460, decided on March 10, 2004, wherein, it has been as under:- "We have already referred to the order of Reference dated 17.2.1993 in paragraph supra. The dispute referred to by the order of Reference is only in respect of workmen employed by the appellant-Company. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal, being a creature of the Reference, cannot adjudicate matters not within the purview of the dispute actually referred to it by the order of Reference. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the Tribunal could not have adjudicated the issues of the salaries of the employees who are not workmen under the Act nor could it have covered such employees by its award. Even assuming, without admitting, that the Reference covered the non-workmen, the Tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction under the Act, could not have adjudicated the dispute insofar as it related to the 'non-workmen'. The Industrial Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute inasmuch as it pertains to the conditions of service of non-workmen. Even assuming, without admitting, that the Reference covered the non-workmen, the Tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction under the Act, could not have adjudicated the dispute insofar as it related to the 'non-workmen'. The Industrial Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute inasmuch as it pertains to the conditions of service of non-workmen. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate that parties cannot by their conduct create or confer jurisdiction on an adjudicating authority when no such jurisdiction exists. We have already noticed that the Division Bench has erred in holding that there is community of interest between the workmen and the non-workmen and holding further that the workmen could raise a dispute regarding the service conditions of non-workmen." 7. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that respondent had approached this court immediately challenging his termination order and writ petition was disposed of on 7.7.2015 directing him to approach the Labour Court. Thereafter, respondent approached the Labour Court. An award was passed in his favour on 26.11.2018. Respondent as well as other workman who were similarly situated were terminated in the year 1999. The workman were working on daily wage basis. Similarly situated workman as the respondent had been reinstated in service. 8. All the workman preferred writ petitions in this court. The writ petition filed by the respondent was admitted and was disposed of on 7.7.2015. Respondent was directed to approach the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute. Thereafter, respondent served a demand notice and raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court vide order dated 26.11.2018 passed an award in favour of the respondent. The Labour Court ordered the respondent to be reinstated in the service with continuity of service. 9. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law settled vide the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the same fail to advance the case of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In the present case, respondent had immediately approached this court challenging his termination. Hence, respondent cannot be attributed any delay on his part vis-a-vis. challenge to his termination of services. The other workman who were similarly situated as the respondent have already been reinstated in service. 11. 10. In the present case, respondent had immediately approached this court challenging his termination. Hence, respondent cannot be attributed any delay on his part vis-a-vis. challenge to his termination of services. The other workman who were similarly situated as the respondent have already been reinstated in service. 11. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent was liable to be treated on the same footing as the other similarly situated workman, learned Single Judge had, thus, rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 12. No ground for interference is made out. 13. Dismissed.