ORDER : (Inderjeet Singh, J.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as "Department") challenging the award dated 19.06.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1- Workman raised an industrial dispute and after failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur for adjudication of the dispute. Thereafter, the Workman submitted a claim stating therein that he was appointed by the Department in the year 1989 and he has worked therein till 1992. Thereafter, the Department terminated his services without assigning any reason. The Department filed a reply to the claim petition and submitted therein that the Workman has never completed 240 days in one calendar year and he had left the job as per wish without informing the Department. Thereafter, the Workman as well as the Department submitted the oral and documentary evidence. The learned Labour Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties comes to a finding that there is no violation of under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "ID Act"). However, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that there is a violation of 25 H of the ID Act, as while giving appointment to the new persons, the Workman was not given an opportunity for re-employment. The learned Labour Court vide its award dated 19.06.2000 ordered for reinstatement of the Workman with continuity of service and also awarded 25% of the back-wages. Being aggrieved by the award dated 19.06.2000 the Department has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that there is no violation of 25 F of the ID Act, therefore, the learned Labour Court has committed a serious illegality in directing for reinstatement of the Workman. Counsel further submits that the reinstatement in such cases is not automatic and some reasonable compensation can be given to the Workman. 4. Counsel further submits that the reinstatement in such cases is not automatic and some reasonable compensation can be given to the Workman. 4. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BSNL v. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 5. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of BSNL v. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 , taking the trend further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- "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 malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour ractice 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 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view 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. 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 nonpayment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25F 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. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 ). 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. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 ). 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." 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Workman has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the learned Labour Court has rightly recorded a finding that there is violation of the under Section 25H of the ID Act, as admittedly, while giving appointment to the new persons, the Workman was not given any opportunity of re-employment and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This writ petition filed by the Department deserves to be partly allowed; for the reasons, firstly, the Workman has not completed 240 days in one calendar year, and hence there is no violation of Section 25F of the ID Act, secondly, the learned Labour Court had recorded a finding in favour of the Workman under Section 25H of the ID Act, for which, the reinstatement is not automatic and in my considered view, the Workman is entitled for some reasonable compensation, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of BSNL (supra), thirdly, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the Workman has not completed 240 days in one calendar year and also the period, for which, the Workman has worked with the Department, I deem it just and proper to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur dated 19.06.2000 granting reinstatement along with 25% of back wages to the Workman stands modified with the direction to the Department to pay the lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Workman in lieu of full and final settlement. 9. The award dated 19.06.2000 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur stands modified accordingly and the Department is directed to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Workman within a period of three months.