ORDER : (Pranav Trivedi, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent assails the correctness and validity of the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in group of matters dated 05.04.2018. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is common, we took up all the Letters Patent Appeals together for adjudication. For considering the issue involved, the factual matrix of Letters Patent Appeal No. 916 of 2023 in Special Civil Application No. 21746 of 2017 is discussed 2. The prayer as prayed in the petition, preferred by the appellants – original petitioners was to issue direction to quash and set aside the award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the labour court, Nadiad in Reference (LCN) No. 17 of 2003, below Exhibit-36. It was also further prayed to direct the respondents to pay full back wages to the petitioners till the date of death of the concerned workman as if he was continuously in service. The learned Single Judge after considering the arguments made on behalf of the respective parties, dismissed the petitions confirming the award passed by the labour court and directed that the amount which was required to be paid to the respective petitioners may be paid within a reasonable period preferably within a a period of three months. Such order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged in the present appeal. 3. The factual matrix leading to filing of the petition is that the deceased workman was working as a ‘Watchman’ since 01.01.1984. The services of the workman concerned came to be terminated by the respondents with effect from 14.10.1999. It was the case of the petitioner that while terminating the service, the principles enunciated under the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) had not taken place. Therefore, the grievance and dispute was raised by the petitioner – deceased workman, which culminated into Reference (LCN) No. 17 of 2023. Pursuant to the statement of claim being filed, written statement was filed. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad after granting an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and after following due procedure of law disposed of the reference by giving lump sum compensation instead of granting relief of reinstatement and back wages. Pursuant to the statement of claim being filed, written statement was filed. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nadiad after granting an opportunity to both the sides to adduce evidence and after following due procedure of law disposed of the reference by giving lump sum compensation instead of granting relief of reinstatement and back wages. Further direction was also given to pay such lump sum compensation within a period of 60 days from the publication of the award, failing which, it will carry interest @ 9% per annum. The said award was challenged before the learned Single Judge by filing writ petition, which was dismissed with an observation that the award passed by the labour court was just and proper and the lump sum compensation awarded by the labour court was the proper relief for the family of the deceased workman, instead of back wages and continuity in service. The said directions of the learned Single Judge are assailed in the appeal. All the appeals have similar background and only the number of years of service vary. All the workmen have passed away and the legal heirs of the deceased workmen have prayed for back wages and continuity. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Aakash Modi for Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. Parth Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 5. It has been submitted by learned advocate Mr. Modi that the services of the deceased workmen were orally terminated without following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. Therefore, the appellants were entitled for the benefits of continuity in service along with full back wages for the intervening period. It was further argued that the it was not the case of the respondent that the work which was being carried out by the deceased workmen was not available with the respondent. Therefore, if the action of the respondent was illegal, then the legal heirs of the deceased workmen were entitled for the relief of continuity in service along with full back wages for the intervening period. Therefore, if the action of the respondent was illegal, then the legal heirs of the deceased workmen were entitled for the relief of continuity in service along with full back wages for the intervening period. It was further contended that the deceased workmen had continuously worked with the respondent as contemplated under the provisions of Section 25B of the Act and had rendered 240 days service in the preceding year as contemplated under the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, there was no notice being issued to the deceased workmen before termination and, therefore, the relief of continuity and back wages were proper remedy for the families of the deceased workmen. It was further argued that even if quantum of lump sum compensation is considered then the amount given as compensation is not proportionate to the years of service being rendered. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Modi has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the award passed by the labour court was not just and proper and appropriate relief needs to be given to the families of the deceased workmen. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt has opposed the appeals by contending that the award passed by the labour court is just and proper. Further, it was appraised that respondent has not challenged the award passed by the labour court and pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge the amount of compensation along with interest have already been paid to the workmen. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has further contended that there is a delay in filing reference and in some cases the delay ranges from 3 to 9 years. Therefore, the amount of compensation as awarded by the labour court which came to be confirmed by the learned Single Judge was just and proper. In view of such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has prayed to dismiss the appeals. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, for ready reference, the chart showing the appeals vis-a-vis number of services rendered by the workmen along with the amount of compensation awarded is reproduced hereunder :- Sr. No. LPA No. SCA No. Ref. Case No. Delay in filing complaint Total Tenure of Service Amount of lump sum compensation awarded by labour court 1. No. LPA No. SCA No. Ref. Case No. Delay in filing complaint Total Tenure of Service Amount of lump sum compensation awarded by labour court 1. 908 of 2023 21754 of 2017 25 of 2023 1 year 20 years Rs.2.00 lacs 2. 909 of 2023 21753 of 2017 24 of 2023 1 year 20 years Rs.2.00 lacs 3. 910 of 2023 21750 of 2017 21 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 4. 911 of 2023 21749 of 2017 20 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 5. 912 of 2023 21751 of 2017 22 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 6. 913 of 2023 21752 of 2017 23 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 7. 914 of 2023 21747 of 2017 18 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 8. 915 of 2023 21748 of 2017 19 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 9. 916 of 2023 21746 of 2017 17 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 10. 917 of 2023 21758 of 2017 489 of 2023 4.5 years 17 years Rs.1.75 lacs 11. 918 of 2023 21755 of 2017 113 of 2023 9 years 17 years Rs.1.75 lacs 12. 919 of 2023 21756 of 2017 450 of 2023 2.5 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 8. It is not in dispute that the workmen were working as a Watchman with effect from the year 1984 and the workmen had rendered services from 16 years to 20 years. Therefore the core question for consideration in these appeals would be whether lump sum compensation could have been awarded instead of back-wages and continuity to the families of the deceased employees and further, if the order of lump sum compensation was right then what would be quantum of such lump sum compensation. While deciding the core question, the time gap which has intervened between the date of termination and the date of granting relief of lump sum compensation by the learned Single Judge has to be seen. The workmen were terminated way back in the year 1999 and the order of the learned Single Judge was passed in the year 2018. In the recent years, there is shift of paradigm by granting lump sum compensation instead of back wages and continuity. The workmen were terminated way back in the year 1999 and the order of the learned Single Judge was passed in the year 2018. In the recent years, there is shift of paradigm by granting lump sum compensation instead of back wages and continuity. Even if there is breach of Section 25F of the Act, it cannot necessarily mean to automatically entail the relief of reinstatement and back wages to the workmen. Obviously in the present case, there would not be a case of reinstatement as all the workmen have passed away, but reinstatement not being automatic, grant of lump sum compensation would meet the ends of justice. 8.1. The shift in law on this count was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal [ (2010) 6 SCC 773 ] relying on its own another decision in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board [ (2009) 15 SCC 327 ], observing that the relief of payment of lump-sum compensation could be a proper relief in a given set of facts and circumstances. “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 ].)” 8.2. In subsequent decision in Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. In subsequent decision in Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ], the Supreme Court stated, “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. 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.” 8.3. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi [ (2007) 9 SCC 353 ], the Supreme Court held that the question of grant of compensation in place of relief of reinstatement could be guided by relevant factors to be that whether the appointment was made in accordance with the statutory Rules or not. 8.4. It is to be observed that the decisions of the Supreme Court have carved out the circumstances and aspects which may guide the discretion of the court in awarding lump-sum compensation instead of granting relief of reinstatement even if there is a breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8.5. These factors were highlighted in Bantva Municipality Vs. Amritlal Harji Chauhan being Special Civil Application No.9135 of 2013 decided on 31.3.2014 as under :- “(i) The fact that the workman is daily-rated workmen, not permanently employed; (ii) He is not holding a permanent post; (iii) Nature of his employment; (iv) Span of service, viz. The period during which he worked upto the date of termination of services; (v) Manner and method of appointment. The period during which he worked upto the date of termination of services; (v) Manner and method of appointment. Whether it was a backdoor entry; (vi) The time gap from the date of termination; (vii) Delay in raising the Reference is also considered to be a germane factor; (viii) Any special feature peculiar to the facts of the particular case. For instance, in Bhurumal (supra), the Supreme Court noticed that post which the workman held was of Lineman in the Telephone Department, and that the work of Lineman was drastically reduced in view of advancement of the technology.” 8.6. In the case of BSNL v. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 , it was categorically observed that even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. 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. 9. Therefore, looking to the gap of date of appointment, date of termination, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is seen, grant of lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with. 10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum compensation would be appropriate remedy for the families of the deceased workmen, the other aspects which comes for consideration is quantum of lump sum compensation. Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has contended that there was delay in preferring the complaint and the subsequent reference, it can be observed from the pleadings that the averments with regard to delay and laches in preferring the reference were not made before the labour court as well as the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the argument of learned advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to delay and laches in preferring reference cannot be countenanced and what needs to be seen is that almost all the workmen have put in 16-20 years of service for the respondent and their services were terminated without following due procedure of law. Therefore, the families of the deceased workmen needs to be compensated proportionally as to the number of years of service put in by them. However, in order to balance the equation, we have considered to give effect of delay in preferring the reference while enhancing the amount of compensation. Therefore, the families of the deceased workmen needs to be compensated proportionally as to the number of years of service put in by them. However, in order to balance the equation, we have considered to give effect of delay in preferring the reference while enhancing the amount of compensation. Thus, while calculating the number of years of services, we proposed to deduct the number of years service for which there is delay in preferring reference. After deduction of such number of service, we propose to give compensation in the following tabular form : Sr. No. Total no. of years for lump sum compensation Amount of lump sum compensation 1. 5 to 10 years Rs.3.00 lacs 2. 10-15 years Rs.5.00 lacs 3. 15-20 years Rs.7.5 lacs 11. As the amount as awarded by the labour court is already paid by the respondent such amount shall be deducted from the total amount of compensation as per the above mentioned chart. To give effect of each and every appellants qua amount of compensation, the chart is reproduced herein-below : Sr. No. LPA No. (a) SCA No. (b) Ref. Case No. (c) Delay in filing complaint (d) Total Tenure of Service (e) Amount of lump sum compensation awarded by labour court (f) Total no. of years for lump sum compensation (g) Amount payable (h) Total amount to be payable (i) (h - f) 1. 908 of 2023 21754 of 2017 25 of 2023 1 year 20 years Rs.2.00 lacs 19 years Rs.7.5 lacs Rs.5.5 lacs 2. 909 of 2023 21753 of 2017 24 of 2023 1 year 20 years Rs.2.00 lacs 19 years Rs.7.5 lacs Rs.5.5 lacs 3. 910 of 2023 21750 of 2017 21 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 4. 911 of 2023 21749 of 2017 20 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 5. 912 of 2023 21751 of 2017 22 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 6. 913 of 2023 21752 of 2017 23 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 7. 914 of 2023 21747 of 2017 18 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 8. 913 of 2023 21752 of 2017 23 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 7. 914 of 2023 21747 of 2017 18 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 8. 915 of 2023 21748 of 2017 19 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 9. 916 of 2023 21746 of 2017 17 of 2023 3 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 10. 917 of 2023 21758 of 2017 489 of 2023 4.5 years 17 years Rs.1.75 lacs 12.5 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.1.25 lacs 11. 918 of 2023 21755 of 2017 113 of 2023 9 years 17 years Rs.1.75 lacs 8 years Rs.3.00 lacs Rs.1.25 lacs 12. 919 of 2023 21756 of 2017 450 of 2023 2.5 years 16 years Rs.1.50 lacs 13.5 years Rs.5.00 lacs Rs.3.5 lacs 12. With the above mentioned observation, lump sum compensation is enhanced as provided in the aforesaid chart and the same shall be paid to the appellants after deducting the amount as already paid and as observed in column (i) of above- mentioned chart. The amount so derived shall be paid to the appellants within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, there shall be interest @ 9% per annum. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the present appeals are partly allowed.