ORDER : (Pranav Trivedi, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the appellant – original respondent No.1 assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7321 of 2009. 2. The prayers made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to given directions declaring the decision of the Labour Court in awarding Rs.30,000/- as lumpsum compensation instead of granted the relief of reinstatement as arbitrary and illegal. 3. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by both the parties, partly allowed the writ petition and modified the award to the extent of granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-. The State Government, being aggrieved by such order, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The factual matrix which has led to the filing of the present Appeal is that the respondent – workman was working as Class-IV employee from 01.12.1991 with the appellant. It was the case of the workman that his services came to be terminated illegally with effect from 08.11.1995 almost after a period of 14 years of service. Such termination culminated in an industrial dispute. The Assistant Labour Commissioner made a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad being Reference (LCA) No.763 of 1996. The parties led the evidence. The Labour Court, by the award dated 29.01.2007, granted lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/-. The workman aggrieved by such award, preferred the writ petition. The Learned Single Judge enhanced the lump-sum compensation to Rs.5,00,000/-. This order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant. Though served, nobody appears for the respondents. 6. Mr. Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has submitted that the workman had preferred a writ petition in the year 2009, which was after two years of passing of award. Therefore, the petition suffers from the aspect of delay and latches, which is not considered by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court was just and proper and Rs.5,00,000/- would be a huge amount to be paid to the respondent daily wager. Therefore, the petition suffers from the aspect of delay and latches, which is not considered by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court was just and proper and Rs.5,00,000/- would be a huge amount to be paid to the respondent daily wager. In wake of such submission, Mr. Udhwani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant has requested to consider the payers as made in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Having heard learned Assistant Government Pleader and having perused the material on record, the small point of consideration before us in the facts of the present case is as to whether in the scenario of clear cut violation of Section 25F of the Act, reinstatement would be automatic or lump-sum compensation would meet the end of justice. If we peruse the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that there is a breach of Section 25F of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the appellant workman would be on the verge of superannuation in a short span of time. 7.1 In shift of paradigm, this Court has consistently taken a view that relief by way of reinstatement with back-wages would not be automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given situation, even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Furthermore, in given circumstances, it would always be open to the management to terminate the service of the employee by paying him retrenchment compensation since the workman was working on daily wages and even after he is reinstated he would have no right to seek regularization. Further, the workman is always on the verge of superannuation, therefore, in such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose. Therefore, we are inclined to give appropriate monetary compensation to the workman which would meet the ends of justice. 7.2 The law as envisaged in catena of decisions is that even if finding of breach of Section 25F of the Act is recorded, it would not automatically entail relief of reinstatement for the workman. The relief of reinstatement and grant of back-wages may not follow as a matter of rule. 7.2 The law as envisaged in catena of decisions is that even if finding of breach of Section 25F of the Act is recorded, it would not automatically entail relief of reinstatement for the workman. The relief of reinstatement and grant of back-wages may not follow as a matter of rule. This principle is especially applicable when it comes to the grant of relief of reinstatement and award of back-wages to the daily rated workmen, who by virtue of their status cannot claim reinstatement as a matter of course, nor can claim the right to be reinstated. 7.3 In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board [ (2009) 15 SCC 327 ], the Supreme Court held that, “It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice.” (Para 7) 7.3.1 It was further observed, “It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.” (Para 14) 7.4 In Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal [ (2010) 6 SCC 773 ], relying on Jagbir Singh (supra), the Supreme Court observed about the shift in the approach of the court in granting the relief of payment of lump-sum compensation. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.” (Para 14) 7.4 In Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal [ (2010) 6 SCC 773 ], relying on Jagbir Singh (supra), the Supreme Court observed about the shift in the approach of the court in granting the relief of payment of lump-sum compensation. “In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey [ 2006 (1) SCC 479 ], Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [ 2007 (9) SCC 353 ], State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma [2007 (1) SCC 575], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [ 2007 (9) SCC 748 ], Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute [ 2008 (5) SCC 75 ], Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai [ 2006 (11) SCC 684 ], GDA v. Ashok Kumar [ 2008 (4) SCC 261 ] and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula [ 2008 (1) SCC 575 ].)” (para 9) 7.5 In a subsequent decision in the case of Rajasthan Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ], the above position was highlighted with elaboration, and it was held, “From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief.” (Para 22) 7.6 In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi [ (2007)9 SCC 353 ], the Supreme Court inter alia stated that on the question of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement, one of the relevant factors was whether appointment in question was made in terms of statutory rules. Again decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar [ (2008)4 SCC 261 ] deserves a reference: “The first respondent was admittedly appointed on a daily wage of Rs. 17 per day. He worked for a bit more than two years. It has not been disputed before us that sanction of the State of U.P. was necessary for creation of posts. The contention of the appellant before the Labour Court that the post was not sanctioned after 31- 3-1990 by the State was not denied or disputed. If there did not exist any post, in our opinion, the Labour Court should not have directed reinstatement of the first respondent in service.” (para 18) 7.6.1 The Court proceeded to state, “A statutory authority is obligated to make recruitments only upon compliance with the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment in violation of the said constitutional scheme as also the statutory recruitment rules, if any, would be void. Any appointment in violation of the said constitutional scheme as also the statutory recruitment rules, if any, would be void. These facts were required to be kept in mind by the Labour Court before passing an award of reinstatement.” (para 19) 7.6.2 It was thus stated also, “Furthermore, public interest would not be subserved if after such a long lapse of time, the first respondent is directed to be reinstated in service.” (para 20) 7.6.3 The Supreme Court finally expressed, “We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be directed to pay compensation to the first respondent in stead and in place of the relief of reinstatement in service.” (para 21) 7.7 B.S.N.L. Vs Bhurumal being Civil Appeal No.10957 of 2013 decided on 11th December, 2013, is a more recent decision, in which the Supreme Court surveyed the various decisions and enunciated to re-emphasise the principles in the following words, “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. 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 25-F 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.” (para 23) 7.7.1 Reiterating that a daily-wage workman cannot claim reinstatement as a matter of right, the Court said, “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 regularization (See: State of Karnataka vs. 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.” (para 24) 7.7.2 There was, however a rider mentioned, “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 wee regularized under some policy but the concerned workman 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.” (para 25) “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 procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F 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.” (para 33) 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 vs. 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.” (para 34) 7.8 In the case of Shankar Shetty (supra), the Supreme Court referred to Jagbir Singh (supra) and other judgments on the aspect. In that case, the respondent was engaged as a daily wager in 1978 and worked intermittently for seven years till his retrenchment which was about twenty-five years back. It was held that the relief of reinstatement was not justified. In the present case, the termination was almost 25 years back and therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Shankar Shetty (supra), would directly effect this case. It was held that the relief of reinstatement was not justified. In the present case, the termination was almost 25 years back and therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Shankar Shetty (supra), would directly effect this case. Awarding compensation of Rs.1 lac, the Apex Court observed, “If the principles stated in Jagbir Singh(supra) and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.” (para 7) 7.9 Similarly in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court while holding the termination to be illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, held that it would not automatically result into reinstatement of the workmen. Looking to the age of the workmen and the fact that the termination was three decades back, the Supreme Court awarded lump-sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. Following was observed by the Supreme Court: “The case at hand, in our opinion, is one such case where reinstatement must give way to award of compensation. We say so because looking to the totality of the circumstances, the reinstatement of the respondent in service does not appear to be an acceptable option. Monetary compensation, keeping in view the length of service rendered by the respondent, the wages that he was receiving during that period which according to the evidence was around Rs.24.75 per day should sufficiently meet the ends of justice. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that award of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand only) should meet the ends of justice.” (para 16) 7.10 Same principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and in the case of Vice Chancellor Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Akhileshkumar Khare [ (2016) 1 SCC 521 ]. Several judgments, including those referred above, were considered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bantva Municipality Vs. Akhileshkumar Khare [ (2016) 1 SCC 521 ]. Several judgments, including those referred above, were considered by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Bantva Municipality Vs. Amritlal Darji Chauhan in Special Civil Application No.9135 of 2013 decided on 31.3.2014. 8.Therefore, once compensation was granted, the question would be whether the learned Single Judge was justified in enhancing compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the appellant workman has put in almost 14 years of service. Therefore, we deem it fit to confirm compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. In view of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal, connected Civil application stands disposed of accordingly.