JUDGMENT Alok Mathur, J. Heard Sri. Pankaj Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri. Mahesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.05.2016, passed by the Labour Court, Faizabad thereby allowing the claim preferred by respondent no. 1 - workman against his termination and has awarded reinstatement alongwith 40% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent-workman was engaged in April, 2003 by the Zila Gramodyog Officer on daily wages on the post of Peon/Chaukidar. It is stated that though no appointment letter was given to the workman but he was engaged on daily wage basis and also was not selected after following any procedure. The respondent no. 1 worked till January, 2004. Against the workman's oral termination, an industrial dispute was raised by the respondent-workman stating that he was recruited on daily wage basis by the Zila Gramodyog Officer by the then Chief Executive Officer - Umesh Chandra Tiwari and his services were terminated on 03.07.2004 by an oral order of Manager - Ajay Singh. It was further stated that the workman was paid Rs. 47.50/- per day as daily wages and lastly at the time of termination he was receiving Rs. 64.50 per day as wages. 4. Before the Labour Court the respondent - workman has stated that the petitioners while terminating his services have violated provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1947") inasmuch as no notice nor wages in lieu of notice was given to him prior to his retrenchment. He has worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment. The workman in support of his claim has filed the muster roll for the period he had worked with the petitioners to demonstrate that employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and workman and also that he had worked for 240 days in the calendar year from the date of his retrenchment. The notice was issued to the petitioners, who participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The aspect of employer-employee relationship was never denied by the petitioners. The notice was issued to the petitioners, who participated in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The aspect of employer-employee relationship was never denied by the petitioners. Further muster roll was also produced by the petitioners which demonstrated that the workman had worked for the months of May, June, July and December, 2003 and January, February, 2004. This aspect of the matter was never disputed by the petitioners before the Labour Court. 5. The Labour Court after duly considering the evidence filed by the respective parties was of the considered view that the employee worked for 306 days in the calendar year prior to his retrenchment and also that provisions of Section 6N of the Act, 1947 were not complied with by the petitioners and hence the claim deserves to succeed. Accordingly, while allowing the claim the Labour Court held the order of retrenchment to be illegal and was set aside granting relief of reinstatement alongwith 40% back wages. 6. The petitioners before this Court only assail the relief granted to the respondent-workman. It is submitted that the workman worked only for 306 days, which is less then a year and accordingly the relief of reinstatement should not have been allowed. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttrakhand and Another v. Raj Kumar, 2019 (14) SCC 353 , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhooramal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , District Development Officer & Another v. Satish Kantilal Amerelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 and Chief Executive Officer, U.P. Khadi Board v. Nikhil Singh and Another - Writ C No. 15222 of 2016 (decided on 09.08.2022). 7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-workman has approached the Labour Court after five years of his termination and this aspect should have been considered by the Labour Court before granting the relief of reinstatement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the award during execution proceedings, the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the workman. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttrakhand and Another v. Raj Kumar (supra), in paras 9 to 13 has held has under :- "11. 2,30,000/- to the workman. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttrakhand and Another v. Raj Kumar (supra), in paras 9 to 13 has held has under :- "11. Here is also a case where the respondent claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year or so in PWD of the State; secondly, he had no right to claim regularisation; thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court. 12. 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 BSNL. 13. In view of the forgoing 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 reinstatement and other consequential benefits by takin recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in BSNL case." 10. The Apex Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhooramal (supra), in paras 33 to 35 has held has held herein below : "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 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. 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 not right to seek regularisation. 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, given 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." 11. The Apex Court in the case of District Development Officer & Another v. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (supra), in paras 15 relying upon the judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhooramal (supra) has held as under :- "15. The Apex Court in the case of District Development Officer & Another v. Satish Kantilal Amerelia (supra), in paras 15 relying upon the judgment in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhooramal (supra) has held as under :- "15. 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 reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in BSNL case." 12. The Apex Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi (supra), in paras 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14 has held as under :- "6. The fact that the respondent was appointed as a daily-wager is not in dispute. He had worked with the Corporation for a very short period namely from 01.08.1989 to 24.11.1991. As noticed hereinbefore, an industrial dispute was raised only on 02.09.1996. 7. The Conciliation Officer purported to have condoned the delay. He could not do so. There is no dispute that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act does not provide for any period of limitation. But it is now well settled that the relief to which a workman would be entitled to in such a situation would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 8. ....... 9. Although according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant the Labour Court and the High Court committed an error in arriving at a finding that in terminating the services of the respondent, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act were contravened, we will proceed on the basis of that the said finding is correct. The question, however, would be as to whether in a situation of this nature, relief of reinstatement in services should have been granted. It is now well settled by reason of catena of decisions of this Court that the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so. The question, however, would be as to whether in a situation of this nature, relief of reinstatement in services should have been granted. It is now well settled by reason of catena of decisions of this Court that the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so. For the said purpose, several factors are required to be taken into consideration, one of them being as to whether such an appointment had been made in terms of the statutory rules, Delay in raising an industrial dispute is also a relevant fact. 13. The legal position has since undergone a change in the light of a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Secy., State of Karnataka v. Umadevi wherein this Court held that "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is under a constitutional obligation to comply with the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. We are, therefore, of the opinion that keeping in view the nature and period of services rendered by the respondent herein as also the period during which he had worked and the fact that he had raised an industrial dispute after six years, interest of justice would be met if the impugned judgments are substituted by an award of compensation for a sum of Rs. 75,000 in favour of the respondent." 13. Lastly a coordinate Bench of this Court in a judgment in respect to the same department rendered in the case of Chief Executive Officer U.P. Khadi and Vill. Industries Board v. Nikhil Singh and Another - Writ C No. 15222 of 2016 (supra), has held as under :- "17. Under these circumstances, with the recent law, which is prevalent at the time of adjudication of the present case wherein it has been held that even in the case where the services are terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the Act, 1947 or Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the reinstatement and full back wages would not be automatic if the workman is a daily wager by paying the compensation would be sufficient to give justice to the opposite party no. 1. 18. The opposite party no. 1. 18. The opposite party no. 1 had worked for a brief period of about one year and approached the Tribunal after five years so, the part of award of reinstatement and 50 per cent backwages is set aside and it is hereby ordered that the opposite party no. 1 be compensated instead, by awarding him a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation which would serve the ends of justice." 14. In the light of above and also considering the judgments of the Apex Court, it is clear that where a person has rendered service only for short period of time, then in such circumstances reinstatement is not a proper remedy. The Apex Court has also held that in all the cases where ever retrenchment is held to be illegal, reinstatement is not automatic and this aspect of the matter has to be considered on case to case basis. In the present case, considering that the workman has worked for less than one year, granting relief of reinstatement was not appropriate. 15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met in case petitioners are directed to pay further amount as compensation to the respondent no. 1 - workman for illegally terminating his services. 16. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that retrenchment of the respondent-workman is held to be illegal but he shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs. 03,30,000/-. Out of which Rs. 02,30,000/- has already been paid by the petitioners to the workman hence an remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid to the respondent workman by the petitioners within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority. 17. The writ petition is partly allowed.