JUDGMENT : Heard. By way of instant Letters Patent Appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 29.3.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 663 of 2011, whereby the Award dated 7.9.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government-cum-Industrial Tribunal-I Chandigarh in Case No. ID-3/2007( for short, “Tribunal”) holding the retrenchment of respondent herein to be bad in law and directing the appellants herein to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits, has been affirmed. 2. Appellants and Respondent herein shall be referred to as the Bank and workman respectively for the sake of convenience. 3. A glance at the factual background of the case reveals that the workman raised an Industrial Dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Bank. It was alleged that workman remained in continuous employment with New Shimla Branch of the Bank w.e.f 9.6.2000 till 29.7.2005, on payment of Rs. 50/- as daily wage. She was not allowed to work w.e.f. 29.7.2005 and her services were terminated without any prior notice or salary in lieu thereof, therefore, the workman alleged her retrenchment to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. 4. On 22.1.2007, appropriate Government referred the dispute, under Section 10 of the Act, to the Tribunal for adjudication in following terms:- “Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Shimla in terminating the services of Smt. Pooja, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 29.7.2005 is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?” 5. The Bank did not specifically deny the averment with respect to engagement of workman in the Bank since 9.6.2000. However, the relationship of employer and employee with the workman was denied. It was stated that the workman was, in fact, employed by a contractor, who was awarded a contract to install, operate and maintain a generator set in the concerned branch of the bank. The said contract was stated to have commenced in August, 2002. It was further maintained by the management that the contractor was to be paid Rs. 8200/- per month by the bank and on the asking of the said contractor, a sum of Rs. 700/- per month was being paid to the workman, who was employed to operate the generator set by the contractor. It was further maintained by the management that the contractor was to be paid Rs. 8200/- per month by the bank and on the asking of the said contractor, a sum of Rs. 700/- per month was being paid to the workman, who was employed to operate the generator set by the contractor. On one hand, the management had taken a specific stand, as noticed above, on the other, the management simultaneously pleaded that the services of the workman were availed by the branch of the bank as casual labour to perform the work of sweeping and cleaning the branch on few occasions only before commencement of the business hours and she was paid for the same on daily basis as and when, she was engaged as such. 6. Learned Tribunal on the basis of material on record including the evidence led by the parties found the defence raised by the management as fallacious. The workman was held to be in continuous employment of the bank from 9.6.2000 to 29.7.2005. The termination of workman was held to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The management was directed to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits. 7. Learned Single Judge of this Court, while deciding the challenge raised by the bank to the award passed by the Tribunal, held findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal to be in accordance with the material on record and thus, affirmed the award impugned by way of CWP No. 663 of 2011. 8. Perusal of the grounds raised by the appellants in the instant Appeal reveal that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as Award passed by the learned Tribunal have been assailed being not inconformity with the material on record. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been challenged broadly on the ground that the relationship of employer and employee has wrongly been held to exist between the bank and the workman, whereas the workman was proved to be the employee of the contractor. However, at the time of hearing, an argument has been raised in alternative that in any case, the relief of reinstatement in favour of the workman was not warranted. Sh. However, at the time of hearing, an argument has been raised in alternative that in any case, the relief of reinstatement in favour of the workman was not warranted. Sh. K. D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate representing the bank has placed reliance on judgments passed in G.M., B.S.N.L and ors vs. Mahesh Chand, 2008 (3) Services Law Reporter, 105, Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, 2010 (6) SCC 773 , District Development Officer & another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298 and Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer, PWD, Civil Appeal No. 4483 of 2010, decided on 2.9.2021. 9. The specific case of workman, as pleaded, that she was employed w.e.f. 9.6.2000 in the New Shimla Branch of the bank was neither denied nor otherwise rebutted by the bank hence, such fact was impliedly admitted. On the contrary, the bank raised the plea that the workman was employee of the contractor with whom the contract for installation of generator set had come into being in August, 2002. The bank, however, admitted that workman was occasionally assigned the sweeping and cleaning work on need basis and was paid Rs. 50/- per day for such job, which was being paid to her in addition to Rs. 700/- per month as Generator set attendant by deducting the same from payable amount to the contractor as per contract. Thus, there was a clear admission of the bank to the effect that the workman was being paid Rs. 50/- as daily wage for sweeping and other office works assigned to her from petty cash. It was not the case of the bank that its concerned branch had some other incumbent for the job of sweeping and cleaning. It is hard to believe that a branch of State Bank of India that too in a thickly populated area of town would remain without sweeping and cleaning for days together. Viewed in aforesaid perspective adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the bank for not having produced best evidence to prove from its records actual payments made to the workman. Even otherwise, the stand of the bank regarding casual deployment of workman to sweep and clean the branch has been belied by the cross-examination of bank’s witness before the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise, the stand of the bank regarding casual deployment of workman to sweep and clean the branch has been belied by the cross-examination of bank’s witness before the learned Tribunal. That being so, we do not find any reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Tribunal and by the learned Single Judge, as regards the nature and period of employment of the workman with the bank. 10. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants to the effect that the order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits was not warranted in the facts of the present case, in our considered view, is also liable to be rejected for the reasons detailed hereinafter. 11. In G.M., B.S.N.L and ors vs. Mahesh Chand, 2008 (3) Services Law Reporter, 105, the question considered was whether the workman had worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and on whom the onus rested to prove such fact? In addition, their Lordships had rejected the claim of the workman by taking into consideration specific facts of the case by observing as under:- “Additionally, the specific stand of the appellants in the proceedings before the Tribunal and the High Court was that there is no sanctioned post of Safaiwala. There is no finding recorded by the Tribunal or the High Court that this stand is incorrect. Further, the respondent is also not consistent as to the period for which he worked. At one place he said he was working for five hours each day and other places he had stated that he was working for 8 hours. On the contrary, the appellant with reference to the nature of work done categorically stated that on a part time basis depending on the need and requirement the respondent was engaged for 2 to 3 hours periodically. Interestingly, the work that was being done by the respondent was also being done by his wife and his mother. Sometimes, no order of appointment was admittedly issued to the respondent. This fact is mis-conceived. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the award made by the Tribunal as affirmed by learned Single Judge and the Division bench cannot be sustained and is set aside. Sometimes, no order of appointment was admittedly issued to the respondent. This fact is mis-conceived. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, the award made by the Tribunal as affirmed by learned Single Judge and the Division bench cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.” The facts and propositions discussed in the above noted judgment are thus clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. 12. In Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, 2010 (6) SCC 773 , Hon’ble Supreme Court declined the relief of reinstatement to the workman in the peculiar facts of the case by observing that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and had worked hardly for 2 or 3 years. Noticing various past precedents, it was observed that the relief by way of reinstatement with back wages was not automatic even if termination of an employee was found to be illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in case of such nature may be appropriate. 13. In District Development Officer & another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298, the Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance on paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of judgment passed in BSNL vs. Bhuru Mal, 2014 (7) SCC 177 , which read as under:- “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 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 dailywage 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. Rationable for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. Rationable 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 may 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 v. Umadevi (3). 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. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a dailywage 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, fist 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 weightly 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.” The relief of compensation instead of reinstatement was allowed by their Lordships again having considered the specific facts of the case as under:- “12. 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.” The relief of compensation instead of reinstatement was allowed by their Lordships again having considered the specific facts of the case as under:- “12. Having gone through the entire record of the case and further keeping in view the nature of factual controversy, the 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 the 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 BSNL v. Bhurumal would aptly apply to the facts of this case and we prefer to apply the same for disposal of these appeals.” 14. Lastly, in Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer, PWD, Civil Appeal No. 4483 of 2010, decided on 2.9.2021, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttrakhand & another vs. Raj Kumar 2019 (14) SCC 353 , was relied, which itself had relied on paragraphs 33 to 35 of the judgment in Bhurumal (supra). Accordingly, their Lordships have been pleased to hold as under:- “6. In the light of the state of the law, which we take note of, we notice certain facts which are not in dispute. This is a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The authority involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the appellant was not a permanent employee. The authority involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note that, in the award answering Issue No.1, which was, whether the termination of the appellant’s service was justified and in order, and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled to, it was found, inter alia, that the appellant would not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers. There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such circumstances, we think that the principle, which is enunciated by this Court, in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar (supra), which we have referred to, would be more appropriate to follow. In other words, we find that reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy. 7. In such circumstances, noticing that, though the appellant was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court in 2006, the appellant has not been working since 2009 following the impugned order, and also taking note of the fact that the appellant was, in all likelihood, employed otherwise, also the interest of justice would be best subserved with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lumpsum compensation, appellant be paid Rs. 3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into consideration also the fact that the appellant had already been paid Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation.” 15. Analysing the facts of instant case, in light of the exposition of law discussed hereinabove, it can safely be held to be falling in the zone of exception. The bank being a public sector undertaking, was expected to place on record true and correct facts. The stand of the bank that workman was not its employee and also having been deployed causally, as noticed above, is belied by record and proved otherwise. Considering the incorrect stand having been taken by the bank, there is no hesitation to infer unfair labour practice having been applied by the bank. The workman was proved to have worked continuously on daily wage basis for more than five years. Considering the incorrect stand having been taken by the bank, there is no hesitation to infer unfair labour practice having been applied by the bank. The workman was proved to have worked continuously on daily wage basis for more than five years. It is not the case of the bank that its concerned branch had a regular sweeper to sweep and clean the branch. It cannot be visualized that the branch of a bank, that too none else than State Bank of India, would not require service of a sweeper to clean and sweep the business place regularly. It is also unimaginable that the said branch of the bank would require the service of workman for the purposes of sweeping and cleaning occasionally. Thus, the conduct of the bank/management clearly proves its intent to ostensibly employ the workman on casual or temporary basis and to continue her as such for years with the object of depriving her of the status and privilege of permanent workman, which as per Clause-10 of the 5th Schedule of the Act amounts to unfair labour practice. 16. Further, the workman in the instant case was initially employed on 9.6.2000 and worked continuously till 29.7.2005 i.e. for more than five years. We have been informed at the time of hearing that the workman is still working in the bank, after passing of the award by the learned Tribunal. A perusal of order dated 23.2.2011, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 663 of 2011 reveals that operation of the impugned award was stayed on the condition that the bank would continue to engage the workman for the works for which, she was earlier engaged. While admitting the writ petition on 3.6.2011, the interim order dated 23.2.2011 was ordered to continue. While admitting the writ petition on 3.6.2011, the interim order dated 23.2.2011 was ordered to continue. Thus, the service rendered by the workman to the bank initially for five years and after passing of the award by the learned Tribunal again for continuous period of more than eleven years, is definitely a circumstance to uphold the order of reinstatement in favour of the workman or otherwise, it will really be harsh upon her to be left on road without any job after a period of 21 years of her initial employment with the bank, especially when she may be at such a stage of life where she may not be able to secure another job and livelihood for her. The relief in terms of monetary compensation may not be appropriate in the given facts of the case. 17. In light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.