JUDGMENT : Kshitij Shailendra, J. Heard Shri Devendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Diptiman Singh for the respondent No. 2-M/s Triveni Engineering Works Ltd., Sugar Unit-Khatauli, District-Muzaffar Nagar. 2. This writ petition is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 19.2.2014 whereby the workmen have been awarded a lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- except petitioner No. 1-Shri Narendra Kumar who has been awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 6524/-. 3. The employer in this case is a sugar industry and it engages labour/workmen on the basis of categorization made in the Standing Order. 4. The case is of the petitioners is that they were engaged by the industry and work was taken from them and despite the fact that they had completed 240 days work, their services were orally terminated in the year 1992 without following due process of law and in violation of the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-1947 (in short 'the Act-1947'). 5. Reference was made to the Labour Court and the case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 38 of 1999 as the leading case alongwith various connected matters and the Labour Court, by impugned award dated 31.5.2002, held that termination of services of the workmen was contrary to law and relief in terms of reinstatement of all the 10 workmen with continuity in service alongwith 50% backwages was awarded. The employer-M/s. Triveni Engineering Works Ltd., Sugar Unit-Khatauli, District-Muzaffarnagar challenged the aforesaid award by filing Writ Petition No. 35990 of 2002 (Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P. Meerut and others) which was allowed by this Court by order dated 9.4.2007 wherein this Court observed that the workmen had failed to discharge the primary obligation of establishing necessary facts for applicability of Section 6-N of the Act-1947 and, therefore, the award was found to be unsustainable. 6. This Court, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award, remanded the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the issue as to whether conditions required for applicability of Section 6-N of the Act had been fulfilled or not and to make its award accordingly. 7. 6. This Court, while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award, remanded the matter to the Labour Court to re-examine the issue as to whether conditions required for applicability of Section 6-N of the Act had been fulfilled or not and to make its award accordingly. 7. Another part of the order dated 9.4.2007 passed by this Court is that the nature of services of the workmen was also gone into by this Court and it was observed that action of the employer in refusing work to the workmen w.e.f. 7.3.1992 cannot be said to be illegal, particularly in the facts when the workmen did not contend that they were permanent employees of the industry. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after remand, the Labour Court has recorded a clear finding in favour of the petitioners-workmen that they had completed 240 days of working in the industry, however, the Labour Court, instead of directing reinstatement with backwages, has erred in awarding compensation only. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Ltd., 2014 (11) SCC 85 , in which, the Supreme Court, after considering various Authorities, laid down the principles of award with backwages alongwith relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel further argued that insofar as aspect relating to gainful employment is concerned, the Labour Court has recorded a perverse finding that petitioner No. 1-workman did not state that he was unemployed and that he could not get any work. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to the award and oral statement of petitioner No. 1-workman. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has supported the award stating that the award has been passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the Writ Court in the previous round of litigation and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned award. 10. Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-employer, has opposed the writ petition by arguing that as per the Standing Order applicable for sugar industries, workmen are categorized as ''Permanent, Seasonal, Temporary, Probationers, Apprentices and Substitutes''. 10. Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-employer, has opposed the writ petition by arguing that as per the Standing Order applicable for sugar industries, workmen are categorized as ''Permanent, Seasonal, Temporary, Probationers, Apprentices and Substitutes''. He has referred to various definitions contained in the said Standing Order and has tried to impress the Court that since the petitioners were engaged in a particular crushing season, therefore, they did not fall in the category of ''permanent employees'' and they could only be treated as ''temporary or seasonal'' employees. On merits of the impugned award, it has been contended that the Writ Court, in its order dated 9.4.2007, had remanded the matter to the Labour Court to examine applicability as well as violation of Section 6-N of the Act 1947 and, after remand, the Labour Court has recorded a clear finding that since the workmen have completed 240 days of working in the industry, the action of the employer in terminating the services of the petitioners was contrary to the statutory mandate contained under Section 6-N of the Act-1947. He further argued that if violation of Section 6-N of the Act 1947 was found to have been committed by the industry, reinstatement with backwages would not be an automatic consequence of such violation and, at the most, as per the said provision itself, compensation ''equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months'' would be payable and the Labour Court, in the present case, has awarded compensation in consonance with the provisions of Section 6-N(b) of the Act 1947. He also submits that the workmen have worked for very small durations of one year, two years and three years and in one case seven years and they were not allowed to work after 1992. He also submits that insofar as the validity of termination of services is concerned, no contrary view can be taken in the present writ petition as the High Court, in its order dated 9.4.2007 has already held that refusing work to the workman w.e.f. 7.3.1992 cannot be said to be illegal as they were not ''permanent employees'' in the industry. 11. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that in the earlier round of litigation, the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with 50% backwages was set aside by this Court in the writ petition filed by the employer and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for a limited purpose of re-examination of applicability of Section 6-N of the Act 1947. Once the Labour Court has found that the employer had violated the said provision, the issue remained to be examined was as to whether the award of compensation was just and proper or as to whether the relief of reinstatement with backwages could be granted. 12. From perusal of record, I find that the workmen have worked for short durations. The matter was referred to the Labour Court after a period of 5 years and the nature of services rendered by the petitioners were not in the capacity of ''permanent employees'' as already held by this Court in the order dated 9.4.2007. 13. Insofar as the categorization of workmen as per the Standing Order is concerned, this Court cannot examine the said issue as it was neither pleaded nor argued before the Labour Court nor was there any issue framed in this regard. Had there been a case of categorization of workmen and the award was based upon analysis of such a categorization, situation would have been different. Therefore, different categorizations under Standing Order are immaterial in the present case. However, the Court cannot ignore the findings recorded by this Court in its order dated 9.4.2007 where termination has not been found to be illegal. 14. In Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (5) SCC 127 , it was held by Supreme Court that non compliance with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (this provision is broadly pari materia with Section 25-F), although, leads to the grant of a relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service in favour of the workman, the same would not mean that such relief is to be granted automatically or as a matter of course. It was emphasised that the Labour Court must take into consideration the relevant facts for exercise of its discretion in granting the relief. 15. It was emphasised that the Labour Court must take into consideration the relevant facts for exercise of its discretion in granting the relief. 15. Supreme Court in Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar, 2006 (5) SCC 173 , reiterated the above legal position. That was a case where the Labour Court had granted reinstatement in service with full back wages to the workman as statutory provisions were not followed. The award was not interfered with by the High Court. However, the Court granted monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 16. In Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mamni, 2006 (9) SCC 434 , following Nagar Mahapalika (supra), Supreme Court held that the reinstatement granted to the workman because there was violation of Section 25F, was not justified and modified the order of reinstatement by directing that the workman shall be compensated by payment of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- instead of the order of the reinstatement. 17. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi, 2007 (9) SCC 353 , the services were terminated on 24.11.1991 in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. He had completed 240 days of continuous work in a period of twelve months preceding the order of termination. The workman approached the Conciliation Officer on or about 2.9.1996, i.e., after a period of about five years. The Labour Court granted to the workman, M.C.Joshi, relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages. In the writ petition filed by the Corporation, the direction of reinstatement was maintained but back wages were reduced from 50% to 25%. The Supreme Court substituted the award of reinstatement by compensation for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. 18. In Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, 2008 (4) SCC 261 , the Apex Court was concerned with the question as to whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding relief of reinstatement in favour of the workman who had worked as daily wager for two years. His termination was held to be violative of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court should not have directed reinstatement of the workman in service and substituted the order of reinstatement by awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- 19. His termination was held to be violative of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court should not have directed reinstatement of the workman in service and substituted the order of reinstatement by awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- 19. In Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, 2008 (8) SCC 402 , the termination of the workman who was a daily wager, was held illegal on diverse grounds including violation of the provisions of Section 25-F. Supreme Court held that even in a case where order of termination was illegal, automatic direction for reinstatement with full back wages was not contemplated. The Court substituted the order of reinstatement by an award of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 20. In Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, 2009 (15) SCC 327 , the workman had worked from 1.9.1995 to 18.7.1996 as a daily wager and was granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement with back wages. 21. It is also necessary to refer to subsequent three decisions of Supreme Court, namely, Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Laxmi Kant Gupta, 2009 (16) SCC 562 , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh, 2012 (1) SCC 558 and Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, 2010 (6) SCC 773 , where the view has been taken in line with the cases discussed above. As a matter of fact in Santosh Kumar Seal (supra), Apex Court awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/-to each of the workmen who were illegally retrenched as they were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and worked hardly for two or three years. It was held that the relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead granted monetary compensation. 22. 40,000/-to each of the workmen who were illegally retrenched as they were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and worked hardly for two or three years. It was held that the relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead granted monetary compensation. 22. In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh, 2013 (5) SCC 136 , Supreme Court on consideration of the most of the cases cited above reiterated the principle regarding exercise of judicial discretion by the Labour Court in a matter where the termination of the workman is held to be illegal being in violation of Section 25-F by holding that the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial. 23. The aforesaid authorities have been considered by this Court in its judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 2017(7) ADJ 393 . 24. Further, The Supreme Court in several authorities some of which are mentioned below has held that if the only defect in the termination order is non-payment of retrenchment compensation as required by Section 25 F of Industrial Dispute Act (or Section 6 N of U.P.I.D. Act) then it is not always necessary to direct reinstatement with full back wages and that in such situation more often than not proper relief may be to award consolidated damages/compensation particularly when the employer is Government or Governmental agency and relevant rules have not been followed before appointment. Nagar Mahapalika v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2113 Haryana State Electronics Devpt Corpn v. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427 Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, AIR 2008 SC 1955 Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, AIR 2009 SC 3004 25. In Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, AIR 2010 SC 2140 , it has been held that if daily wagers had worked for 2 or 3 years and their services were terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation then consolidated damages should be awarded to them (Rs.40,000/- to each of the workmen was awarded in the said case). It has also been held that daily wager does not hold a post and cannot be equated with permanent employee. This view has been reiterated in Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty, JT 2010(9) SC 262. 26. The aforesaid authorities have been considered by this Court in its judgment in Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Jhansi v. Presiding Officer and another, 2011(4) ADJ 199 . 27. This Court has held that even if termination is found illegal, reinstatement with backwages is not automatic consequence. 28. It has also been held that, in case, violation of Section 6-N of the Act 1947 is found to have been committed, award of compensation is the appropriate relief. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that delay has occurred in deciding the present case. It cannot be ignored that services were terminated in the year 1992, the earlier award was passed in the year 2002, the writ petition challenging the award was decided in the year 2007, the labour Court, after remand, decided the matter in 2014 and the present case is being decided in the year 2023 and, therefore, the delay has occurred in contesting the matter before different Courts for which the workmen should not be penalized. 30. In totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the petitioners as well as the nature of work rendered by them for short durations, reinstatement with backwages cannot be awarded. 31. In view of the above, considering the duration of time consumed in the entire litigation, this writ petition is being decided in the following terms : (a). The award of the Labour Court dated 19.2.2014 is upheld with modification that petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 shall be awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 30000/- each and the same shall be paid to them within a period of three months from today. (b). Insofar as petitioner No. 1-Narendra Kumar is concerned, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as lumpsum compensation shall be paid to him. 31-A. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed off.