JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under Article 226, 227, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue appropriate writ of mandamus or writ of certiorary or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the award dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Labour Court at Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.284 of 2000. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are as under; 2.1 The petitioner herein is undertaking rural development projects and schemes assigned by Central Government and State Government and the grant is also made available accordingly by such authority. Therefore, it has no source of its own income and entire administration of the agency is run through Class I & II Gazetted Officers posted on deputation by the State of Gujarat and Class III & IV employees sent on deputation by Jamnagar District Panchayat. It is coming on record that the expenses are borne within 2% contingency fund of the project cost. The respondent herein was employed purely on temporary, ad-hoc and daily wage basis through order dated 17.02.1986. The respondent was provided work at village Dhrol under Rashtriya Rojgar Yojna and thereafter his appointment was extended from time to time depending upon the availability of work and fund at Dhrol or at other places of the District of Jamnagar. It is also the case of the petitioner that the appointing authority at different places were different and the project and schemes on which the work was provided were also altogether different. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein who was provided work without following due procedure of recruitment, purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis at different places was paid his salary/wages out of 2% of contingency fund. 2.2 It is coming on record that later on, due to non availability of the work the respondent herein was not provided work at the end of the month of March, 1996 and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the respondent herein approached the Hon'ble Labour Court at Jamnagar by way of filing a Reference [LCJ] No.284/2000 praying for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages on the ground that he had continuously work between 23.01.1986 to 10.12.1998. Hence, the Labour Court has passed an award on 29.01.2009 ordering reinstatement with continuity of service with 10 % back-wages. Hence, the Labour Court has passed an award on 29.01.2009 ordering reinstatement with continuity of service with 10 % back-wages. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herein was appointed on purely temporary and adhoc basis and his employment depends upon the availability of work. It is also submitted that the respondent was provided with work in different schemes and projects entrusted by the Central as well as State Government and there is no permanent nature of work. He submits that the daily wager has no right to continue the work and his employment comes to an end at the end of the day. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the District Rural Development Agency is not an industry within the meaning of “industry” under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 25[f] of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable and hence the Labour Court ought to have rejected reference. 3.2 It is also submitted that when a project or a scheme is completed, an employment of the daily wager automatically comes to an end and therefore, the provisions of Section 2[00] [bb] of the Act will be attracted. 3.3 It is further submitted that after a period of more than 13 years, the respondent cannot be reinstated with 10% backwages, as awarded by the Labour Court. 4. Per Contra, learned advocate for the respondent Mr. Shukla submitted that the respondent has worked for 13 years as a Clerk and due to non availability of work the respondent was terminated. It is submitted that the respondent is only receiving 17(B) wages as per last drawn salary which is a meager amount. Learned advocate submitted that the respondent-workman has continued in service under different schemes, therefore it is not established that there is a specific scheme for a period for which the respondent was given an appointment. However, on the contrary, the respondent has given a letter of appointment for 29 days and continued him for years together, which is admittedly an unfair practice to get rid of the liability arising out of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, on the contrary, the respondent has given a letter of appointment for 29 days and continued him for years together, which is admittedly an unfair practice to get rid of the liability arising out of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4.1 Learned advocate for the respondent has relied upon a decision in case of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Karnal vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Panipat reported in 2001 3 LLN 1139, wherein it is observed that appointment for a period of 89 days with a notional grade and re-employment after a break of one day and termination of service on completion of 332 days service amount to deprive the workman from the benefits of provisions of section 25(f) of the ID Act and therefore, it is held that the Labour Court has rightly given the finding that the policy of petitioner- employer was malafide and order passed by the learned Labour Court has not been interfered by the High Court. 4.2 He has also further relied upon a decision in case of Gujarat Pollution Control Board vs. Jagdish nathabhai Chavda reported in 2008 1 LLJ 479 , this Court has specifically hold that the employer has to prove that workmen appointment was for a specific project hence, section 2(00)(bb) of the ID Act would not be attracted. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. It is coming out from the record that the respondent was appointed as Muster Clerk w.e.f. 23.01.1986 for a period of 29 days. Thereafter, from time to time appointment orders were issued. Lastly, his services came to be terminated on 10.12.1998 orally without following any provisions of law. The petitioner has not produced any evidence on record to show that the respondent workman has not completed 240 days of service in each year. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent workman was working as daily wager and has attended duty till 10.12.1998 and thereafter as there was no work he was not continued on service. The petitioner has not produced any evidence on record to show that the respondent workman has not completed 240 days of service in each year. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent workman was working as daily wager and has attended duty till 10.12.1998 and thereafter as there was no work he was not continued on service. However, respondent workman was working with the petitioner since 23.01.1986 as daily wager and after such a long services of 13 years, he was orally terminated from the services and therefore, the labour Court has rightly held that termination of services is in violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the respondent workman was entitled for the relief. This Court is in concurrence with the findings as recorded by the labour Court. 7. 1 The Honourable Supreme court in Civil Appeal No.9067 of 2014 with connected appeals reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 982 in case of K. V. Anil Mithra & Anr. vs. Sree Sankarcharya University of Sanskrit & Anr. held as under; “31. The consistent view of this Court is that such nonobservance has been termed to be void ab initio bad and consequence in the ordinary course has to follow by reinstatement with consequential benefits but it is not held to be automatic and what alternative relief the workman is entitled for on account of non-observance of mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act 1947 is open to be considered by the Tribunal/Courts in the facts and circumstances of each case. 32. What appropriate relief the workman may be entitled for regarding non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act 1947 has been considered by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal. The relevant paras are 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. 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. 33. It has been further followed in District Development Officer and Another Vs. Satish Kantilal Amralia [(2018) 12 SCC 298]” (emphasis supplied) 7.1 In Allahabad Bank and ors. v. Krishan Pal Singh [SLP(C) No. 19648 of 2019 decided on 20th September 2021], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad for reinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent - workman had attained age of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion, there was no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the workman. However, as the workman has worked only for a period of about six years and he has already attained the age of superannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the relief granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, where termination/ dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedure prescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had attained age of superannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be met by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. We accordingly direct payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent, within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to pay the same within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for interest @ 6% per annum, till payment." 7.3 The respondent workman is without service of the petitioner since 10.12.1998, when he came to be orally terminated. The award of the Labour Court is dated 29.01.2009. However, such award has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2009. The award of the Labour Court is dated 29.01.2009. However, such award has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2009. Almost 11 years have been passed and the respondent workman has not been reinstated by the petitioner. 7.4 In view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that reinstatement in service need not be granted in all cases of illegal termination of service and reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be granted by the Court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the order of reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits is modified and lump sum compensation is awarded to the respondent workman towards full and final settlement in respect of all the claims of the respondent workman. 8. In the circumstances, the present Special Civil Application is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 29.01.2009 in Reference (LCJ) No.284 of 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar is modified with the direction that the petitioner shall pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent workman within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. 8.1 Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.