JUDGMENT : GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, J. 1. Challenge in this writ appeal is to the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (L) No. 172 of 2017 partly allowing the writ petition filed by the State/petitioners whereby the learned Single Judge modified the Award dated 05.05.2017 (pronounced on 06.06.2017) passed in Case No. 9/ID Act/Ref/2013 by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short I.D. Act) Bilaspur, in which, the Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the appellants/workers holding that the discontinuance of services of 10 workers/employees (07 workers herein in the present appeal as appellants) was unjustified and illegal and has thus ordered for reinstatement in services with 20% of back wages. 2. By order dated 20.09.2021, the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition directed that the respondents/workers would be entitled for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for each year of service that they have rendered with the State Government, i.e. for 5 years and for which they would be entitled for a total amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- each as compensation in lieu of reinstatement as full and final settlement of the claim. 3. By this writ appeal, the appellants/workers are seeking setting aside of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 172/2017 and affirming the award dated 05.05.2017 (pronounced on 06.06.2017) passed in Case No. 9/ID Act/Ref/2013 by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. For consideration of this writ appeal, the brief description of appellants/workers is as below: S. No. Name of Appellant Date of appointment Place of Posting Date of Termination 1. Mahesh Ram Thawait 07.02.2000 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 2. Somesh Kumar Pathak 17.08.1998 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 3. Mahendra Kumar Gauraha 13.08.1998 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 4. Ku. Sushila Ratre 02.12.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 5. Manish Tiwari 20.08.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 6. Smt. Priti Soni 05.03.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 7. Roman Gaygawal 20.07.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 5. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of this appeal are that 10 workers (07 workers/appellants herein in the present appeal) involved in the dispute claimed themselves to be working with the different Colleges in and around District Bilaspur. Manish Tiwari 20.08.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 6. Smt. Priti Soni 05.03.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 7. Roman Gaygawal 20.07.1999 C.I.M.S. 11.09.2008 5. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of this appeal are that 10 workers (07 workers/appellants herein in the present appeal) involved in the dispute claimed themselves to be working with the different Colleges in and around District Bilaspur. In the year 2003, the appellants herein participated in the recruitment process conducted by Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur for recruitment in the establishment Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (for short ‘CIMS’) which was under its control and the appellants were appointed there as Lower Division Clerk. Since 2003 the appellants/workers continuously discharged their services at CIMS till 11.09.2008 when their services were discontinued by the State Government after taking over the control of CIMS on 01.12.2007. 6. Initially, a writ petition bearing No. W.P. (S) No. 1738 of 2009 was filed by the appellants/petitioners/workers before this Court in which order dated 12.04.2009 was passed disposing of the said petition with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies available to them before appropriate forum. The appellants raised the dispute before the Labour Commissioner who made reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute. The Labour Court passed the award on 05.05.2017 in favour of the appellants directing for their reinstatement with 20% back wages, which was challenged by the respondents herein before this Court in the year 2017 itself by filing W.P. (L) No. 172 of 2017 and the same was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.09.2021. 7. Shri S.P. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that on 11.09.2008, the services of the appellants/workers were terminated without complying with the provisions of Sections 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act and also without complying with the provisions of Section 17B of the I.D. Act. Even the respondents had not followed the principles of “last come, first go” for the purpose of discontinuing the services of the employees working under the respondents' department in the year 2008 and without giving opportunities to the appellants/workers, their services were illegally terminated. 8. Even the respondents had not followed the principles of “last come, first go” for the purpose of discontinuing the services of the employees working under the respondents' department in the year 2008 and without giving opportunities to the appellants/workers, their services were illegally terminated. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has framed the questions in Para-15 of his order for consideration which are as under: (i) Whether the finding given by the Court below holding the termination to be bad in law and violative of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is proper, legal and justified? (ii) Whether the awarding of 20% of back-wages is justified or not? (iii) What would be the proper relief that can be granted to Respondents/Workers at this juncture after 13 years of remaining out of employment as compared to only 5 years of services that they have rendered? The learned Single Judge has already recorded the findings that the respondents' department did not comply with the provisions of Sections 25F and 25N of the I.D. Act and also did not follow the principles of “last come, first go” and illegally terminated the services of the appellants/workers. There was no notice or salary in lieu of the notice given to appellants/workers. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that admittedly in this case, the present appellants had worked continuously under employment of the State/respondents from 2003-2008 for a period of about 5 years and that finding is upheld by the Single Judge that termination of the services of the appellants was illegal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant case, State/respondents have not complied with Section 17B of the I.D. Act and have not paid last pay drawn in compliance of Section 17B of the said Act to the appellants/workers. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has wrongly come to the conclusion that State/respondents paid last pay drawn to the appellants/workers. Therefore, the respondents' authority without complying with the provisions of Section 25F, 25N and 17B of the I.D. Act and principles of “last come, first go” arbitrarily passed the termination order. The learned Single Judge was not justified in modifying the well-reasoned order/award of Labour Court. Therefore, the respondents' authority without complying with the provisions of Section 25F, 25N and 17B of the I.D. Act and principles of “last come, first go” arbitrarily passed the termination order. The learned Single Judge was not justified in modifying the well-reasoned order/award of Labour Court. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of learned Single Judge be set-aside and the order passed by the Labour Court be restored. 11. It is submitted that the State/respondents have not disputed the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order from Paras 16 to 20 where the finding given by the Labour Court holding termination of the appellants to be bad in law and violative of the principles of the I.D. Act, has been affirmed. 12. It is contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the appellants worked only for a period of 5 years from 2003 to 2008, whereas they worked for about 8-10 years with the respondents' department. In fact, after their termination in the year 2008, the appellants had raised their dispute by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 1738 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of on 12.04.2012 with liberty to the appellants to raise their grievances before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the appellants approached the Labour Commissioner who referred to the matter to the Labour Court and award dated 05.05.2017 was passed by the Labour Court in favour of the appellants directing their reinstatement with 20% back wages. Against the said order, the respondents herein preferred a W.P. (L) No. 172 of 2017 which was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.09.2021. In this view of the matter it is evident that the appellants took steps immediately after their termination and due to failure of the system, the case remained pending for a long time, for which appellants cannot be blamed. 13. It is further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was not justified in denying 20% back wages to the appellants by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Shri Phool Chand (Dead) through LRs. 13. It is further contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge was not justified in denying 20% back wages to the appellants by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Shri Phool Chand (Dead) through LRs. [Decided on 20.9.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 1756/2010] because in the present case the appellants were out of employment for a period of 13-14 years, respondents did not comply with the provisions of Sections 25G of the I.D. Act as also principles of “last come, first go.” In these circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court awarding 20% back wages in favour of the appellants cannot be said to be bad in law. 14. So far as the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of District Development Officer and Another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia [Decided on 28.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 19857 and 19858 of 2017] relied upon by the learned Single Judge is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the cited case the workman contested the case in two forums simultaneously i.e. one before the Civil Court and another before the Labour Court challenging his termination, he was a daily wager for a short tenure of 2½ years and a considerable period of 25 years had passed since his termination. 15. Likewise, learned Single Judge has also not properly appreciated the principles of law laid down in other judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and consequently the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be restored. 16. On the other hand, Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, supporting the impugned order, submitted that the learned Single Judge considering all the factual and legal aspects of the matter, in light of various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, has rightly modified the award of the Labour Court and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the appellants as full and final settlement of their claims which calls for no interference by this Court. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. Learned Single Judge considering the fact that the appellants were out of employment for a period of 13-14 years, in view of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed that it is a case where order of reinstatement would not be equitable or justified at this point of time and accordingly, awarded compensation in lieu of reinstatement as full and final settlement of their claim. 19. It is not disputed that the appellants/workers are terminated by the respondents party by order dated 11.09.2008 and just after the order of termination, the appellants filed the Writ Petition (S) No. 1738/2009 before this Court. However, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of the same with liberty to the workers to avail appropriate remedies available to them before the appropriate forum. Thereafter, they raised the dispute before the Labour Commissioner under the provisions of the I.D. Act and the Labour Department of the Government made reference to the Labour Court for proper adjudication on the following terms of reference: “Whether the termination of services of Applicants Mahesh Thawait, Ku. Ranjana Yadav, Suneet Kumar Mishra, Somesh Kumar Pathak, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Roman Gaygwal, Mahendra Kumar Gouraha, Ku. Sushila Ratre, Manish Tiwari and Smt. Priti Soni, is legal and proper? If not, to what relief the Applicants are entitled for? In this regard, what is the appropriate direction to be given to Non-applicants?” 20. Thereafter, the Labour Court registered the case No. 9/ID Act/Ref/2013 and all the workers submitted their claims and evidence of the parties were recorded. The Labour Court passed the award on 05.05.2017 directing reinstatement of the workers in service with 20% back wages. The said order was challenged by State/respondents before the Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (L) No. 172 of 2017 which was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 20.09.2021. In such a situation, it cannot be said that delay of 13-14 years was the fault on the part of the appellants and therefore, it would not be justified to deny them reinstatement because a considerable period of 13-14 years have been passed since their termination. 21. In such a situation, it cannot be said that delay of 13-14 years was the fault on the part of the appellants and therefore, it would not be justified to deny them reinstatement because a considerable period of 13-14 years have been passed since their termination. 21. In writ petition i.e. W.P. (L) No. 172 of 2017, on 12.03.2021 the learned Single Judge ordered that subject to State/respondents' complying with the provisions of Section 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947, the operation of the impugned award dated 05.05.2017 so far as awarding 25% of back wages to the appellants/workers is concerned, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. It is noteworthy to mention here that in fact, the Labour Court while passing the award dated 05.05.2017 had directed for reinstatement of the workers with 20% back wages, but, due to inadvertent typographical error, in the order dated 12.03.2021 of the learned Single Judge, stay has been granted in respect of 25% back wages in place of 20% back wages, subject to compliance of Section 17B of the I.D. Act. However, till date the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 17B of the I.D. Act. 22. The learned Single Judge has also observed that there was sufficient evidence adduced by the appellants/workers to show that the respondents did not follow the principles of “last come, first go” for the purpose of discontinuing the services of the employees who worked under them in the year 2008. In these circumstances, the act of the State/respondents in terminating the services of the appellants is totally arbitrary and illegal. 23. In these circumstances, the act of the State/respondents in terminating the services of the appellants is totally arbitrary and illegal. 23. The learned Single Judge referring to various judgments of Supreme Court i.e. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (supra); District Development Officer (supra); Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and Another, (2014) 7 SCC 190 , Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, 2014 (11) SCC 85 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , observed that granting of reinstatement can be only after taking into consideration the entire factual matrix of the case and in a given factual scenario the earlier position was that when the termination is held to be bad in law, the automatic consequence of that is the entitlement of reinstatement with all consequential benefits, but there has been a slight shift from the earlier position that was taken by the Supreme Court. The power has now been given to the Labour Courts and even to the High Court to see whether it would be equitable at this juncture to order for a reinstatement in the factual backdrop of each case, particularly after the judgment being passed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra) and Satish Kantilal Amrelia (supra). 24. Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people and for doing social and economic justice to the people according to law. The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State [See: Gauri Shankar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 12 SCC 754 ]. 25. In the matter of Gauri Shankar (supra), the Supreme Court has reiterated the scope of judicial interference under Article 226 of the Constitution with the award of the Labour Court. There is a very limited scope for interference by the High Court with the award of the Labour Court, it can be done one if the award is passed arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. There is a very limited scope for interference by the High Court with the award of the Labour Court, it can be done one if the award is passed arbitrarily or without jurisdiction. In the said case, there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w Rules 77 and 78 of the Rajasthan Industrial Dispute Rules which rendered the order of termination of the workman void ab initio in law. 26. In the matter of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi (supra), the Labour Court held the appellant entitled to reinstatement with back wages and other consequential benefits which was substituted by the High Court with award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages to be paid to the workman. No evidence was adduced by the employer of its eligibility under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, to employ employees on contractual basis nor that the appellant was employed for any particular projects on the completion of which, his service has been terminated through non-renewal of his contract of employment. The appellant had rendered continuous service for 6 years (save the artificially imposed breaks) as provided under Section 25-B of the I.D. Act and can, therefore be retrenched only through procedure mentioned in the I.D. Act or the State Act which is in pari materia. As the same has not been complied with, therefore, the order of retrenchment was rendered void ab initio and order of reinstatement of the Labour Court was restored. 27. In the case in hand also, the Labour Court held the termination of services of the appellants by the respondents arbitrary and illegal which was subsequently affirmed by the learned Single Judge, but only considering the fact that 13-14 years have passed since termination of the appellants, the learned Single Judge did not find it feasible to sustain the order of reinstatement and accordingly, substituted it with award of compensation to them as full and final settlement of their claim. In reply to the statements of claim, the respondents admitted the fact that CIMS was under the control of Guru Ghasidas University and the appellants herein, who were daily wage employees of the said University, were also working in CIMS. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 01.12.2007 Annexure-P/4 CIMS was taken over as it is by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, State of CG. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 01.12.2007 Annexure-P/4 CIMS was taken over as it is by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, State of CG. 28. So far as the issue of the workman being gainfully employed in any establishment during the intervening period is concerned, the said issue was neither raised before the Labour Commissioner nor before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge. No such ground was raised by the respondents/petitioners in their writ petition as well. During the course of arguments, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that after termination of their services in the year 2008, they were not in gainful employment in any establishment and the respondents have not adduced any evidence in rebuttal. 29. Thus, considering the admitted position that there has been noncompliance of the mandatory requirements under Sections 25F, 25G, 25N and 17B of the I.D. Act r/w Rules 76 and 76(A) of Chhattisgarh Industrial Rules by the respondents, the fact that no fault can be attributed to the appellants for the passage of 13-14 years since their termination, the appellants continued to work under the respondents' department for a period of about 8-10 years, the principle of “last come, first go” was not followed by the respondents, the scope of judicial review/Interference with the award of the Labour Court, keeping in view the principles of law laid down in Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi and Gauri Shankar (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single was not justified in modifying the well-reasoned order of the Labour Court by granting compensation to the appellants in lieu of reinstatement as full and final settlement of their claim. 30. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court is restored/affirmed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.