ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 8-3-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No.3584/2011, by which the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein/Municipal Corporation, Korba, has been allowed partly modifying the award of the Labour Court directing that instead of reinstatement, the workman would be entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- as monetary compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in full and final satisfaction of the industrial dispute. 2. The impugned judgment has been called in question on behalf of the respondent workman on the following factual backdrop: - 3. The appellant/workman was initially appointed in the year 1990 as Painter Helper on daily wage basis against permanent sanctioned vacant post in the Special Area Development Authority, Korba and he was continuously working on the said post till 1997 without any break of service. It is the case of the appellant herein/workman that all of sudden in the month of September, 1997, his services were discontinued and terminated by the order of the then authorities without assigning any reason and other daily wage employees were appointed in the year 1998, however, the case of the appellant/workman was not considered for reappointment as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) and accordingly, he raised industrial dispute against the illegal termination in the hands of the employer/Municipal Corporation, Korba in which the employer also filed reply and refuted the claim of the workman. The Labour Court by order dated 7-1-2011 after conducting enquiry and on the basis of appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that termination of the workman from service would amount to retrenchment and action of the Municipal Corporation was in utter violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and answered the reference in favour of the workman directing the Municipal Corporation to reinstate the workman without any back-wages which the employer/Municipal Corporation assailed by filing W.P.(L)No.3584/2011 and thereafter, from 1-7-2011, the Municipal Corporation started complying with the provision of Section 17B of Act of 1947 and started paying the said benefit to the workman. However, the learned Single Judge by its impugned order dated 8-3-2022 affirming the finding of the Labour Court held that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman was in continuous employment as defined under Section 25B of the Act of 1947 and his termination is in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act of 1947, is correct based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record, however, modified the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement without back-wages and substituted it with a direction to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the workman as monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement in full and final satisfaction of the dispute in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of K.V. Anil Mithra and another v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 982 and Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 112. The learned Single Judge further recorded finding that there is no post for reinstatement of the workman. 4. The workman/writ appellant takes exception to the order of the learned Single Judge by which the award passed by the Labour Court has been interfered with on twin grounds that firstly, post is not available for reinstatement and secondly, the workman is only entitled for monetary compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 5. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein/workman, would submit that it is a case where the finding of the Labour Court that the workman was in continuous employment as defined under Section 25B of the Act of 1947 and further the finding that his termination is in violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F of the Act of 1947, have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, but the finding that there is no post available for reinstatement was not pleaded before the Court and furthermore, there is no pleading in the writ petition that the workman is only entitled for monetary benefit and not reinstatement, as such, in absence of pleading of both the facts, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that the employer/Municipal Corporation is involved in unfair labour practice which appears from Annexure A-7 filed along with the writ appeal and which is the final seniority list of daily wager employees published on 2-8-2011 which shows that after termination of the appellant herein in September, 1997, several employees have been appointed and juniors to the appellant were retained while terminating the services of the appellant, as such, it is a case of unfair labour practice. He would also submit that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered recently in the matter of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat, Civil Appeal No.6890 of 2022, decided on 23-9-2022, the appellant herein is entitled for reinstatement particularly when the Labour Court has not awarded back-wages to him which is specified. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the writ court be set aside and that of the Labour Court be restored. 6. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/employer – Municipal Corporation, Korba, would support the impugned order and submit that the learned Single Judge, in view of non-availability of post and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, (2009) 15 SCC 327 , Incharge Officer and another v. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , K.V. Anil Mithra (supra) and Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele’s case (supra), is absolutely justified in granting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein/workman was appointed as daily wager as Painter Helper and he worked continuously for a period of seven years and at the end of September, 1997, his services were terminated leading to raising of industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which the appropriate government referred to the Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the termination of the workman (Chamra Das) was valid and proper. Ultimately, after due adjudication, the Labour Court, Korba, by its award dated 7-1-2011 clearly recorded a finding that the workman was in continuous employment as defined under Section 25B of the Act of 1947 and his termination is in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947, which, in turn, was affirmed by the learned Single Judge clearly recording finding in paragraph 10 of the impugned order which states as under: - “10. In view of above, the finding recorded by Labor Court that respondent/workman was in continuous employment as defined under Section 25B of the Act of 1947 and his termination is in violation of mandatory provisions under Section 25F of the ID Act is correct based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record.” 9. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge relying upon the alternative submission raised on behalf of the employer/Municipal Corporation, Korba and following the decisions of the Supreme Court in K.V. Anil Mithra (supra) and Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele’s case (supra), the learned Single Judge has held that there is no post/place for reinstatement of the writ petitioner, who was working as daily wage employee, and, therefore, in light of the above two decisions of the Supreme Court, the writ petitioner/workman would be entitled for monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 10. At this stage, two broad facts need to be noticed by this Court. 10. At this stage, two broad facts need to be noticed by this Court. Firstly, reply to the Statement of Claim filed before the Labour Court, which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 before the writ court, would show that it has not been pleaded on behalf of the employer/Municipal Corporation that there is no vacant post for reinstatement of the workman and the employer has also did not adduce any sort of evidence before the Labour Court to establish that the Corporation has no post to reinstate the workman obviously for the reason that it has not been pleaded in reply to the Statement of Claim filed before the Labour Court and when the award was passed and the Municipal Corporation/employer filed writ petition also, it has nowhere been stated in the writ petition that there is no post for reinstatement of the workman and the only ground raised is that the order of reinstatement is not automatically followed where the engagement of a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. As such, the finding of the learned Single Judge as recorded in paragraph 14 that there is no post/place for reinstatement of the workman/appellant herein, who worked as daily wage employee, is contrary to the record as it is neither based on the pleading of the employer nor based on any evidence brought on behalf of the employer. It is contrary to record. 11. Now, the next finding is with regard to grant of monetary compensation. The learned Single Judge has granted compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in place of reinstatement which has also not been pleaded in the writ petition. A careful perusal of the writ petition would show that it has not been stated anywhere that the employer/Municipal Corporation is ready and willing to grant monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the employee has been taken by surprise at the time of argument before the writ court. In all fairness, if the Municipal Corporation was ready and willing to extend the benefit of compensation it could have been done right in the beginning before the Labour Court as reference was made by the State Government in September, 1999. In all fairness, if the Municipal Corporation was ready and willing to extend the benefit of compensation it could have been done right in the beginning before the Labour Court as reference was made by the State Government in September, 1999. After having litigated for 24 years, it would be absolutely inappropriate on the part of the Corporation to say that the workman would be entitled for monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. However, at this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the principle of law with regard to grant of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 12. The Supreme Court, in a three-judge Bench decision, in the matter of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1979) 2 SCC 80 while dealing with retrenchment of services of 56 employees due to non-availability of the raw material necessary for utilisation of full installed capacity by the employer, it was held to be illegal and held as under: - “9. It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service. The spectre of common law doctrine that contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced or the doctrine of mitigation of damages does not haunt in this branch of law. The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer. Speaking realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. Speaking realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. More so in our system where the law's proverbial delay has become stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which period the workman just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he will be denied the back wages which would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case viz. to resist the workmen's demand for revision of wages, the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages.” 13. Similarly, in the matter of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court emphasised the need to adopt a restitutionary approach, when a court has to consider whether to reinstate an employee and if so, the extent to which back-wages is to be ordered, and observed as under: - “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter’s source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 14. In Bhurumal’s case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the discretion of the court in directing reinstatement with back-wages in the event of a retrenchment being declared illegal, have described in the following terms: - “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 practice, etc. 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 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. 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) { (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. 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 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 regularized under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. 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 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.” 15. In the matter of Raj Kumar Dixit v. M/s. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar, 2015 AIR SCW 3681 relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the matter of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, (1990) 3 SCC 682 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under in paragraph 15: - “15. Awarding compensation to an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the workman by the High Court in lieu of reinstatement of the appellant-workman along with 50% back wages is once again contrary to the well settled principles of law as has been laid down by this Court in a catena of cases, particularly, the case of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1990) 3 SCC 682 wherein the Constitution Bench held that the order of termination simpliciter has to be held bad in law for non-compliance of the mandatory requirements provided under the Act and further held that the order of termination will be rendered void ab initio in law and therefore, the workman is entitled for all benefits for which he is legally entitled to in law.” 16. More recently in Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (supra) where the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court interfered with the order of reinstatement and granted monetary compensation which their Lordships of the Supreme Court interfered with and restored the order of reinstatement by relying upon its earlier decisions and observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under: - “14. In the present case, this court finds no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement. Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In the present case, this court finds no perversity or unreasonableness on the part of the Labour Court and the single judge in directing the appellant’s reinstatement. Had the respondent management chosen to accept the verdict, the appellant would have been spared the agony of waiting for more than 10 years. In such circumstances, the denial of backwages, has resulted in punishing him, although the delay is attributable to the judicial process. However, the respondent management cannot be absolved of the primary responsibility in its litigative proclivity. In these circumstances, the appellant shall be entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022. 15. In light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. The appellant workman shall be reinstated in the services of the respondent within six weeks from today. He shall also be entitled to backwages for a period of two years immediately preceding, i.e., from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022. The direction of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge for continuity of service is also restored. The respondent management is directed to pay the backwages as directed by this court, at current rates, within 6 weeks from today. Hence the appeal is allowed in above terms, with no order as to costs.” 17. The direction of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge for continuity of service is also restored. The respondent management is directed to pay the backwages as directed by this court, at current rates, within 6 weeks from today. Hence the appeal is allowed in above terms, with no order as to costs.” 17. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the workman’s termination has been held to be violative of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and directed for reinstatement but without back-wages and termination of workman has also been affirmed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that post is not available for reinstatement which has not been neither pleaded nor established and furthermore, it has clearly been established on record that the Municipal Corporation is involved in unfair labour practice which is apparent from Annexure A-7 which is a part of the reply of the writ petition also and which has not been controverted by filing rejoinder on behalf of the Corporation, which clearly establishes that the workman has been uprooted from his post retaining/continuing his juniors and the Labour Court has clearly recorded a finding in its award relying upon the statement of workman witness Ramprasad Miri (AW-2) that he was working as daily wager in Municipal Corporation, Korba along with the writ appellant herein from 1992 and he has been retained in service at present. In light of the above analysis, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation cited in paragraph 6 are clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 18. In that view of the matter, since the employer/Municipal Corporation is involved in unfair labour practice retaining the juniors and in view of the fact that the termination is illegal as held by the Labour Court and affirmed by the Single Judge, the part of the order impugned modifying the award of the Labour Court directing that the workman would only be entitled for monetary compensation, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the award of the Labour Court is restored and as per the award of the Labour Court, the writ appellant herein will be entitled for reinstatement forthwith without back-wages. Consequently, the award of the Labour Court is restored and as per the award of the Labour Court, the writ appellant herein will be entitled for reinstatement forthwith without back-wages. However, the present appellant will be entitled for the last drawn wages as per Section 17B of the Act of 1947 from the date of order of the learned Single Judge till the date of his reinstatement, if not already paid. 19. The writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).