JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. The present Special Civil Applications challenge the judgment and award dated 22.5.2007 in Reference (LCB) No. 121 of 2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch whereby the respondent workman has been reinstated along with 15% back wages. 1.1 The Special Civil Application No. 12541 of 2008 is preferred by the petitioner company challenging the reinstatement and payment of 15% back wages, whereas the Special Civil Application No. 14503 of 2008 is preferred by the respondent workman challenging the award of 15% back wages only. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Special Civil Applications are as follows: 2.1 It is the case of the respondent workman that he was employed in the year 1990 by the petitioner company as a Turner on lathe machine as a Machine Operator. That he was performing his duties sincerely and honestly and there was no complaint against him. That he was given increase in salary from time to time because of his sincerity and good work. It is alleged that on 12.11.2000 when the respondent workman reached the factory to start his duties, he was told by the petitioner company that his services were no more required and he was released from his job and asked not to attend his duties. It is further alleged that no notice or intimation was given by the petitioner company and his services came to be terminated suddenly with immediate effect. Since the respondent workman was suddenly rendered jobless, in absence of any cause of action, he was left with no other alternative but to approach the learned Labour Court by filing reference (LCB) No. 121 of 2001. The said reference was contested by the petitioner company by filing its written statement. After hearing the contesting parties, the learned Labour Court by its judgment and award dated 22.5.2007 directed reinstatement with 15% back wages. 2.2 Aggrieved, both the parties have filed the present Special Civil Applications, which are being decided by this common judgment and order. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the petitioner company submitted that the petitioner company had produced attendance registers before the learned Labour Court to show that during the period from October-1998 to December-2000, the respondent workman had joined his duties as a Manager therefore, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain present reference. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for the petitioner company submitted that the petitioner company had produced attendance registers before the learned Labour Court to show that during the period from October-1998 to December-2000, the respondent workman had joined his duties as a Manager therefore, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain present reference. It was further submitted that the respondent workman has no where produced anything on record to show that he was working with the petitioner company since the year 1990 and therefore, it was erroneous to hold that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner company since the year 1990 till his termination. It was submitted that the respondent workman was having technical knowledge and was getting monthly salary of Rs. 4,600/- and was working in management cadre. From the attendance registers produced on record, it can be seen that there are only 4 to 6 employees working with the petitioner company and not being a big unit, the Manager was required to do administrative as well as supervisory work and the present respondent was doing both these duties since he was working as a Manager. It is further the case of the petitioner company that the respondent workman himself stopped attending the work as he had started working independently and therefore, there was no order of termination in case of the respondent workman. It was further submitted that since the respondent workman had on his own stopped reporting for work and his services were not terminated by the petitioner company therefore, he was not entitled to any back wages. It was also submitted that after passing the award, the petitioner company had requested the respondent workman to report for work, however, the respondent workman did not report for work but was only interested in getting his back wages. The conduct and act of the respondent workman shows that he was interested in monetary benefits rather than working with the petitioner company. It was finally submitted that the impugned judgment and award of the learned Labour Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. The conduct and act of the respondent workman shows that he was interested in monetary benefits rather than working with the petitioner company. It was finally submitted that the impugned judgment and award of the learned Labour Court is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. G.T. Dayani for the respondent workman submitted that the impugned judgment and award is just and proper with respect to reinstatement, but the respondent workman was entitled for 100% back wages since he was orally terminated without any notice or any cause of action and therefore, there was violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [“the Act” for short] and Section 25(F) in particular. It was submitted that the respondent workman was working with the petitioner company since the year 1990 till 11.12.2000 without any break and that his services were orally terminated in illegal and unjust manner and in violation of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act. It was submitted that while awarding only 15% back wages, the learned Labour Court has not assigned any reasons for denying him 100% back wages. It was also submitted that when the respondent workman went to resume his duties after passing of the award, the petitioner company did not allow him to join the services and has not even released 15% back wages as ordered by the learned Labour Court. It is submitted that the letter dated 6.9.2008 issued by the petitioner company to the respondent workman calling upon him to rejoin the service, was only issued with an intention to create evidence to show that the petitioner company wanted to take him back in service, whereas in actual practice, when the respondent workman had gone to report on duty, he was not allowed to rejoin his duties. 4.1 A further affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent workman dated 20.8.2016 wherein it has been averred that after the respondent workman was denied rejoining of his services and was also denied his outstanding dues to the tune of 15% back wages, he had preferred to join another firm viz. Specific Ventil Fabrics w.e.f. 14.10.2008. However, due to misrepresentations made to the new employer by the petitioner company, he was removed from his new job by the new employer w.e.f. 30.6.2009. Specific Ventil Fabrics w.e.f. 14.10.2008. However, due to misrepresentations made to the new employer by the petitioner company, he was removed from his new job by the new employer w.e.f. 30.6.2009. This fact was also intimated to the petitioner company vide letter dated 3.9.2009. The affidavit further states that thereafter, the respondent workman is doing odd jobs as he has no work on regular basis and no permanent job and as such, he is unemployed without any source of income. 4.2 Finally, it was submitted that the respondent workman was entitled to 100% back wages. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. G.T. Dayani for the respondent workman has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 wherein it has been held that once the employee has been awarded full back wages by the Tribunal, the High Court should not have interfered with the Tribunal’s order for payment of back wages. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. This Court by order dated 24.2.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 12541 of 2008 has passed following interim order: “1. This petition has been preferred against the award dated 22.5.2007 whereby the petitioner employer has been directed to reinstate the respondent and to pay him 50% of the backwages. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing Mr. Dayani learned advocate for the respondent is not present. On 17.2.2009 also Mr. Dayani learned advocate for the respondent was not present and it was informed to the court that he had filed leave note. 3. Today, I have heard Mr. Pandya learned advocate for the petitioner. Considering the submissions and the award and also considering the fact that the respondent of present petition has preferred petition being Special Civil Application No. 14503 of 2008 with the prayer to grant relief of 100% backwages, instead of 50% as granted by the labour court, petition requires to be admitted. 4. Hence, Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph No. 9(C) is granted on the condition that the respondent shall be paid last drawn wages in accordance with section 17-B of the I.D. Act. It would be open to the petitioner to offer work to the respondent. 4. Hence, Rule. Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph No. 9(C) is granted on the condition that the respondent shall be paid last drawn wages in accordance with section 17-B of the I.D. Act. It would be open to the petitioner to offer work to the respondent. If the petitioner is actually reinstated by the respondent, then the petitioner shall pay regular wages as are presently applicable and not the last drawn wages (which would be payable only if the employer opts to comply with the requirements under Section 17-B of the I.D. Act).” 7. It is seen from the record that the services of the respondent workman came to be terminated on 12.11.2000 without following any provisions of law. At the time of his oral termination, the respondent workman was earning Rs. 4,600/- per month as salary. The petitioner company has not produced any evidence on record to show that the respondent workman was not working with them on salary basis but was a contract supervisor engaged whenever his services were required. The petitioner company has taken a self-contradictory stand with respect to the services of the respondent workman by first contending that he was not their workman at all and was not in their services and thereafter, it was contended by the petitioner company that he was being engaged on contract basis as a Supervisor to supervise the work of other workmen in the petitioner company and the petitioner company has not been able to dislodge the oral evidence of the respondent workman. Further, there is no explanation with respect to issuance of vouchers to the respondent workman which were produced by him by way of documentary evidence. In the background of this evidence, the learned Labour Court has rightly held that there was violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the respondent workman was entitled for the relief. This Court is in concurrence with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. 8. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9067 of 2014 along with connected civil appeals decided on 27.10.2021, K.V. Anil Mithra and Another vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 982 has held as follows: “31. This Court is in concurrence with the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. 8. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9067 of 2014 along with connected civil appeals decided on 27.10.2021, K.V. Anil Mithra and Another vs. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 982 has held as follows: “31. The consistent view of this Court is that such non-observance has been termed to be void ab initio bad and consequence in the ordinary course has to follow by reinstatement with consequential benefits but it is not held to be automatic and what alternative relief the workman is entitled for on account of non-observance of mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act 1947 is open to be considered by the Tribunal/Courts in the facts and circumstances of each case. 32. What appropriate relief the workman may be entitled for regarding non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947 has been considered by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal. The relevant paras are 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 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. 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 vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. (35) We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied. 33. It has been further followed in District Development Officer and Another vs. Satish Kantilal Amralia, (2018) 12 SCC 298.” (Emphasis supplied) 8.1 In Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishan Pal Singh, SLP (C) No. 19648 of 2019 decided on 20th September 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad for reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent-workman had attained age of superannuation. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad for reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent-workman had attained age of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion, there was no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the workman. However, as the workman has worked only for a period of about six years and he has already attained the age of superannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the relief granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination/dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had attained age of superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. We accordingly direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs to the respondent, within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to pay the same within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum, till payment.” 8.2 Even in Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Eng. PWD [Civil Appeal No. 4483/2010, decided on September 2, 2021] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “6.....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 circumstance, 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 sub-served with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lump-sum 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.” 9. In the facts and circumstances of present case, it is seen that there is animosity between the employer and the employee. 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.” 9. In the facts and circumstances of present case, it is seen that there is animosity between the employer and the employee. The petitioner company in its stand before the learned Labour Court had tried to disown the respondent workman. Thereafter also, it is seen that the respondent workman by way of his affidavit has placed on record that when he tried to rejoin the service in terms of the award of the learned Labour Court, he was not taken back in service whereby he was forced to join in some other company for his livelihood and he has further alleged that there also the petitioner company had made misrepresentations against him to the new management which resulted in his losing the new job also for which the respondent workman has blamed the petitioner company. Further, the conditional interim order which was passed by this Court on 24.2.2009 has not been acted upon with respect to the payment of wages under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 10. In the present case, the respondent workman has been out of service of the petitioner company since 12.11.2000 when he came to be orally terminated. Almost 21 years have since passed and the respondent workman has not been reinstated by the petitioner company. It appears from the record that the respondent workman has also not preferred any execution application since the interim order passed by this Court was a conditional stay subject to payment of 17B wages. Therefore, the stalemate has continued between the parties since last 21 years. 11. It appears from the record that the respondent workman has also not preferred any execution application since the interim order passed by this Court was a conditional stay subject to payment of 17B wages. Therefore, the stalemate has continued between the parties since last 21 years. 11. In view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that reinstatement in service need not be granted in all cases of illegal termination of service and reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be granted by the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the order of reinstatement and 15% back wages is modified and lump sum compensation is awarded to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement and 15% back wages towards full and final settlement in respect of all the claims of the respondent workman. 11.1 In the circumstances, the present Special Civil Applications are partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 22.5.2007 in Reference (LCB) No. 121 of 2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch is modified with the direction that the petitioner company shall pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the respondent workman with a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Accordingly, the Special Civil Applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.