Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. The instant petition has been preferred challenging the impugned award dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Labour Court-II, Jaipur (for short, 'Labour Court') by which the termination order of the respondent was set aside with direction to the petitioner to reinstate the workman (hereinafter referred to a respondent) with continuity of service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the workman were terminated from 09.08.1984 and the dispute was raised by him after a considerable time of more than 20 years but without considering material aspect of the matter, the impugned award has been passed. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute has been raised after a considerable delay, and under such circumstances adequate amount of compensation could be granted in favor of the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Hence, modification in the award is required. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the workman opposed the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the workman was appointed as Cattle Guard on 01.11.1979 and without giving any compensation amount, his service was terminated on 09.08.1984, in contravention with Provisions contained under Section 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947'). Counsel for the workman submits that under these circumstances the industrial disputes was raised by the workman before the Labor Court and the Labour Court has passed a justified award directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman with continuity in service. 4. Heard and considered the material placed on the record and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the workman worked with the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1979 till 09.08.1984 as Cattle Guard, this fact is not in dispute that his services terminated on 09.08.1984 and the industrial dispute was raised by the workman after a delay of 20 years before the labour court on account of his services being terminated in the violation of provision contained under Section 25-F, 25-G And 25-H of the Act of 1947. Now the question which remain for consideration is whether the workman is entitled to get the reinstatement in service after a delay of considerable time or he could be awarded an adequate amount of compensation. 6. Now the question which remain for consideration is whether the workman is entitled to get the reinstatement in service after a delay of considerable time or he could be awarded an adequate amount of compensation. 6. In spite of passing the order of reinstatement the labour court could have granted lump sum amount of compensation to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement as per reason and judgment passed by the Apex court as well as by this Court which has been held in number of cases that after termination if it is found to be illegal then reinstatement is not a rule of thumb under such circumstances of lump sum amount of compensation can be granted in lieu of compensation. 7. The Apex Court in the case of below cited judgment:- 8. In the case of BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the termination is set aside because of violation of the provisions of 25F of the I.D Act, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 9. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty (2010) 9 SCC 126 , it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, and worked merely for a period of 240 days or 2-3 years and where the termination had taken place many years ago, the recent trend was to grant compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 10. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:- “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 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. 34. 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.” 11. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be Rs.1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs.2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be Rs.3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra) , this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court does not require any interference by this Court. However, considering that the reinstatement is not automatic and the factual aspect of the matter that the workman has rendered services with the petitioner with effect form 01.01.1979 till 09.08.1984 i.e. for a period of 5 years, the workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 (three lacs). 13. Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement as observed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3,00,000 (three lacs). 13. Accordingly, the employer is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement as observed above within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. If the amount is not paid to the workman within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the workman would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual realization. 14. The award of the Labour Court dated 05.10.2016 stands modified in the above terms. 15. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. 16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.