ORDER : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. laying a challenge to the judgment dated 14.02.2017, passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.175/2003 (Gopal Parashar Vs. The Presiding Officer & Anr.) whereby the Hon’ble Single Bench set aside the award dated 01.11.2002, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhilwara and the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 (workman) in the service. 2. The respondent-workman, while working as a casual labour, performed the work pertaining to filling of water, cleaning the office and distribution of papers between the employees of the company from 01.10.1984 to 30.04.1986. The issue raised before the learned Labour Court was with regard to contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1947’). The issue was decided by the learned Labour Court vide its award dated 01.11.2002, passed in the favour of the respondent-workman, although reinstatement was declined. 3. Since, the Labour Court did not give any relief to the respondent-workman, he approached this Court by way of filing writ petition and the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, vide its judgment dated 14.02.2017 has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-workman in which, while dealing with catena of judgments, the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that why the relief ought to be moulded in terms of Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 was denied, if the same is applicable. Otherwise, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court reinstatement is the natural relief to which a workman would be entitled. On this analogy, reinstatement was directed, however, back wages were not allowed but benefit of continuity in service was granted. 4. There is an interim order dated 27.04.2017, operating since the inception of the appeal, by which the effect and operation of the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, has been stayed. 5. Today, Mr. 4. There is an interim order dated 27.04.2017, operating since the inception of the appeal, by which the effect and operation of the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, has been stayed. 5. Today, Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the violation of law, as alleged, was not made out and the learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court ought not to have interfered in the order with regard to termination of services of the respondent-workman, who was otherwise not a regular employee, and thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment deserves interference of this Court. 6. Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman while contending that the impugned judgment warrants no interference, referred to paras No.22, 23, & 25 thereof, which read as under:- “22. In the case of Nedungadi Bank (supra), the facts were different from the present case. While in the said case the respondent’s dismissal was not found to be in any way illegal or there was any irregularity in the disciplinary proceedings, the facts of the present case show that the Tribunal has reached to a positive finding that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1947. Similarly, in Indian Iron & Steel(supra), the Tribunal not only considered the delay but gave av finding that even without considering the question of delay, the respondent has lost his lien in light of the standing orders. 23. Thus, the question of relief is directly proportionate to the findings on the facts before the Tribunal. If the findings and conclusion are found to be against the workmen, the question of delay is taken as additional ground to deny the relief. However, once the Tribunal reaches to a conclusion that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Act, it has no discretion available to it to deny the relief. Of course, relief can be moulded in terms of section 11-A of the Act if the same is applicable. Otherwise, as held by the Apex Court reinstatement is the natural relief to which a workman would be entitled. 24. Of course, relief can be moulded in terms of section 11-A of the Act if the same is applicable. Otherwise, as held by the Apex Court reinstatement is the natural relief to which a workman would be entitled. 24. Taking into consideration all the aspects and also taking into consideration that the management can not take advantage of its own fault and no one can benefit of its own error, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned Tribunal denying relief to the petitioner deserves to be set aside and it is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. However, on account of delay in putting up the claim, the petitioner shall not been titled to any back wages but he shall be given benefit of continuity of service. 25. Compliance of the order shall be made within period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.” 7. At this juncture, this Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (2019) 4 SCC 307 ; relevant portion whereof reads as under: “6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and modify the impugned order to the extent indicated infra. 7. In our opinion, the case at hand is covered by the two decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and District Development Officer and Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amerelia. 8. It is apposite to reproduce what this Court has held in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (SCC p.189, paras 33-35): “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. 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 v. Umadevi (3) [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ]. 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. 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. 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. Here is also a case where the respondent was held to have worked as daily wager or muster role employee hardly for a few years in R & B of the State; Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager; and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) before the Labour Court almost after 15 years of his alleged termination. 10. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the respondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussed by this Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra). 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited’s case (supra). 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs.One lakh) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim re-instatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute. 13. Let the payment of Rs.1,00,000/ be made by the appellant(State) to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The Award dated 09.05.2007 of the Labour Court in LCS No.120 of 1994 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.” 8. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The Award dated 09.05.2007 of the Labour Court in LCS No.120 of 1994 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.” 8. Having regard to the long pendency of the matter and the fact that the matter relates to the services of the respondent-workman which was only for the period from 01.10.1984 to 30.04.1986, and also while taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Executive Engineer (supra), we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lumpsum monetary compensation to the respondent towards full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. In view of the above and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) to the respondent-workman in lieu of his claim regarding reinstatement and back wages as full and final satisfaction. 10. Let the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- be made by the appellant (Insurance Company) to the respondent-workman within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which, the respondent-workman shall be entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount, till actual payment thereof is made. 11. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.