ORDER : 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order/award dated 10.12.2013 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, (for short ‘CGIT’) Jabalpur in Case No. CGIT/LC/R/152/92 whereby the petitioner was permitted to join his duties in the establishment of respondent No. 1, but he was not granted back wages for the period from 20.8.1991 to 10.12.2013. 2. Facts of the case leading to this petition is that the petitioner was employed as Sweeper cum Waterman in Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank from 17.12.1980 and he continued to work there till 08.4.1984. Thereafter he was suffering from mental illness and was receiving treatment from DK Hospital, Raipur, hence, he could not attend his duties for long. After he was declared fit, he reported for duty on 20.8.1991. However, he was not permitted to join his duties by respondent No. 1 informing him that he has abandoned the service. On an application filed by the petitioner, reference was made to the CGIT, Jabalpur vide letter dated 03.7.1992 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’). It is alleged by the petitioner/workman that he was neither served with charge sheet nor provided with any opportunity of hearing. He had completed more than 240 days of service prior to his termination, hence, the termination of his services amounts to illegal retrenchment, Section 25-F of the ID Act was not complied with. Illness of the petitioner was informed to the Manager of the concerned Bank, despite that without conducting any enquiry or providing any opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated illegally. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the CGIT, Jabalpur has held that the petitioner/workman was working as part time Sweeper cum Waterman with respondent No. 1 establishment and Provident Fund was also deducted which has been proved by the documents filed by the petitioner/workman. The learned Tribunal further held that services of the workman were terminated without following due process of issuing charge sheet, holding enquiry and further vide Ex-W-6, the petitioner/workman was informed that he will not be allowed to join his duties, therefore, petitioner’s claim to join the duties had been allowed by learned CGIT, but not granting back wages is against settled preposition of law. In this regard, he placed reliance in the judgment of Pradeep vs. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. and Others, (2022) 3 SCC 683 and Gowramma C. (Dead) by LRs. vs. Manager (Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. and Another, (2022) 11 SCC 794 . 3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if full back wages are not granted to the petitioner, then at least lump sum amount would be granted to him as pursuant to order passed by CGIT, Jabalpur dated 10.12.2013, the petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 12.5.2014 and thereafter in the month of July 2015 he was retired after attaining the age of superannuation. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had not stated in his deposition that whether he was gainfully employed during 1991-2013 or not, but only due to this he cannot be deprived from back wages, particularly when his termination has been held illegal by the CGIT. It is further prayed that atleast he may be granted lump sum back wages for the aforesaid period. In this regard he relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters of State of Uttarakhand and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2019) 14 SCC 353 and Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishan Pal Singh, 2021 SCC Online SC 751. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that burden of proof lies with the petitioner/workman to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. But in the instant case, the petitioner had kept silence in this regard, hence, he is not entitled to get any back wages. In this regard he relied in the judgment of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another vs. S.C. Sharma, 2005 (2) SCC 363 . It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that grant of lump sum back wages was neither pleaded by the petitioner/workman in his application nor raised this issued before learned CGIT, Jabalapur, hence, he cannot raise such prayer directly before this Court. He would further submit that lump sum back wages may only be granted when the workmen is not reinstated, but in this case, the petitioner/workman has been reinstated, hence, he is not entitled to any such back wages, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. He would further submit that lump sum back wages may only be granted when the workmen is not reinstated, but in this case, the petitioner/workman has been reinstated, hence, he is not entitled to any such back wages, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record shows that learned counsel for the respondent has not controverted the order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (Annexure-P/1), whereby service of the petitioner was reinstated. Para 7 of the said order reads as under: “7. As per document Exhibit W-1 first party workman was working in the Bank as part time daily wage waterman cum sweeper from 17.12.1980 to 08.4.8194. Second party has not issued charge-sheet to the workman. No enquiry is admitted. The services of workman are not terminated following due process of law. Termination order has not been issued, refusing workman from joining duties without terminating his services is clearly illegal. That workman was suffering from illness after recovery of his mental illness when he joined the work, he could not be refused to join duties therefore, action of the management not allowing him to join duties is illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.” 7. It was informed by petitioner’s counsel that in compliance of that order, the petitioner was permitted to join his duties on 12.5.2014, but in July 2015 he was retired after attaining the age of superannuation. Order of the reinstatement of the petitioner has not been challenged by the respondent rather vide aforesaid order (Ex- P/1) the petitioner was not granted back wages, which is under challenge in this petition. 8. It is a case of daily wager, who after reinstatement, worked for about 14 months. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred various cases of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that if the order of termination is illegal, the workman is entitled to full back wages, but as has been stated above, the case in hand is a case of daily wager. In similar case of daily wager, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “33. In similar case of daily wager, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , Hon’ble Apex Court has observed 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. 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 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. 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. 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.” 9. Aforesaid case was further followed by the Apex Court in the case of District Development Officer and Another vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298. 10. The case in hand is also a case of daily wager, who was illegally terminated from the services without following due process of law and without serving chargesheet. Since the petitioner was a daily wager, his services would have terminated after following procedures and giving compensation for his retrenchment. Case of such employee cannot be equated with those employees who are regular/permanent employee and have faced termination illegally. During the course of argument, on being enquired by the court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not state about the daily wage earned by the petitioner in the year 1991, when he was not permitted to join his services and also in the year 2014 when he was reinstated and rejoined in the services. 11. In the instant case, the petitioner was terminated illegally without following the procedure prescribed by the law and his services were reinstated in the year 2014, thereafter he was retired in July 2015 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, after reinstatement, he worked only for about 14 months and records further reveal that prior to 1991, he had worked about 03 years and 04 months, thus, he worked with the establishment of respondent No. 1 for about 04 years and 06 months only. Thus, after reinstatement, he worked only for about 14 months and records further reveal that prior to 1991, he had worked about 03 years and 04 months, thus, he worked with the establishment of respondent No. 1 for about 04 years and 06 months only. Hence, considering the totality of the facts of the case, and law enunciated by the Apex Court in the afore-cited cases, and further in the similar cases i.e. Krishan Pal Singh (supra) and Rajkumar (supra), whereby lump sum monetory compensation was awarded to the daily wager, this Court is of the view that instead of granting full back wages, it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the petitioner for the period from 20.8.1991 to 10.12.2013. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that respondent No. 1 shall pay Rs. 3 lakh (Rupees Three Lakh Only) to the petitioner in lieu of back wages for the above said period. It is further directed that aforesaid amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum, till realization of the aforesaid amount. 13. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.