ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: “1-Quashed and set aside the award dated 17-08-2022 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur to the extent of granting lump sum amount 1,25,000/- instead of reinstatement with full back wages continuity. 2-Directed to the respondents to reinstate back the petitioner in service and also paid full back wages from the date of illegal termination to the petitioner with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 3-Further directed to the respondents, if reinstatement in not possible then appropriate compensation Rs.10,00,000/- be granted to the petitioners in placed of reinstatement.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager in the respondent organization in the month of March 2000 on a salary of Rs. 1500 per month. The services of the petitioner continued and his last payout was Rs. 4000 per month. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 19.07.2007. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Department and on 30.11.2010, the dispute was referred by the Labour Department to the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur. 3. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence and material on record, found that the order of termination dated 18.07.2007 is bad and illegal and not tenable. The Labour Court also held that the respondent employer has not complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but instead of reinstatement, the petitioner was granted compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- with interest of 9%. 4. After filing of the writ petition by the workman, notice was issued to the respondent, and despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. Considering that no one has appeared despite service, the matter is posted for final hearing. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Armed Forces Ex- Officers Multi Services Co-operative Society v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) reported as (2022) 7 Supreme 124, submitted that when the termination was found illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, then the duty lies upon the Labour Court to examine whether reinstatement is possible or not. He further submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the legal position, has drawn a conclusion that reinstatement is not possible. He further submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the legal position, has drawn a conclusion that reinstatement is not possible. He further submitted that the post is still lying vacant and the petitioner raised the dispute soon after his termination from the post. He also submitted that the petitioner has already rendered four years of service in the respondent organization and without any compensatory payment, the respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. 6. He also referred to the judgment in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. and Another , Civil Appeal No…./2025 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 20902/2024, order dated 29.01.2025, and submitted that when the termination is found illegal, particularly in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, then the Court is duty-bound to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year. He also submitted that the respondent is duty- bound to consider re-engagement of the petitioner in view of the provisions under Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 8. The only question before us is whether, pursuance to Reference dated 30.10.2010, the Labour Court is justified in refusing to grant relief of reinstatement despite holding the termination as arbitrary, capricious, and without inquiry. If there is justification of refusal for reinstatement, then whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act as termination is violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 9. After the award dated 17.08.2022, a fact is apparent on record that the petitioner was working in the respondent organization and his termination on 19.07.2007 was declared as bad and illegal. The petitioner has raised the dispute and in the year 2010, the same is forwarded as reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Court has adjudicated the dispute on 17.08.2022. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2022 itself. The age of the petitioner at the time of filing of Statement of Claim was 41 and at the time of filing of the writ petition his age is stated to be 52 years and now it's around 55 years. 10. The petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2022 itself. The age of the petitioner at the time of filing of Statement of Claim was 41 and at the time of filing of the writ petition his age is stated to be 52 years and now it's around 55 years. 10. In the case of Armed Forces Ex-Officers Multi Services Co-operative Society v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) (supra), it was held that once order of termination is set aside, the workman will naturally be entitled to continuity of service with order of backwages as determined by the Tribunal or Court of Law. The only question required to be considered is whether the workman was gainfully employed or not, which is again a question of fact. 11. In case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. and Another (supra), the termination was found to be illegal as it was in contravention of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court had directed reinstatement with backwages. Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed the finding with regard to setting aside of termination order but instead of reinstatement held that the workman is entitled for compensation and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000 per year on the basis of services rendered by the workman. 12. Here in this case, the respondent has not contested the case before this Court and moreover the award dated 17.08.2022 clearly indicate that the petitioner has rendered more than three years of service in the respondent organization and the respondent, in violation of Section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, has terminated the services of the present petitioner. The material on record indicated that some allegations were levelled against the petitioner and the same were found baseless by the Labour Court. 13. Considering aforesaid, the petitioner has still five years to serve in the organization before he attains the age of superannuation. Now, no fact is available on record to show that the post is not continuing in the respondent organization. Therefore, it was duty of the Labour Court to consider reinstatement but without considering reinstatement in the respondent organization, it has straightaway drawn a conclusion of grant of compensation as the service of petitioner was three and half years in respondent organization. 14. Therefore, it was duty of the Labour Court to consider reinstatement but without considering reinstatement in the respondent organization, it has straightaway drawn a conclusion of grant of compensation as the service of petitioner was three and half years in respondent organization. 14. In view of the judgments in case of Armed Forces Ex- Officers Multi Services Co-operative Society v. Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) (supra), once the termination is set aside, the workman will naturally be entitled to reinstatement unless there are grounds where reinstatement is not possible. The Labour Court has to examine the grounds for not granting relief of reinstatement but here in this case the Labour Court has not considered the prayer for reinstatement. Otherwise also, the compensation is required to be calculated on the basis of formula as held in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey v. MPPKVV Co. Ltd. and Another (supra). 15. Considering the entirety of material on record, nowhere it has been pleaded that neither post is available nor that it is filled up. Therefore, considering the statement of petitioner that the post is still lying vacant in the respondent organization, it is appropriate to grant relief of reinstatement. 16. As regard to backwages, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering judgment in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324 and M.L. Singla v. PNB (2018) SCC 21 has held that it is duty of the employer to prove that the employee workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages which he was getting prior to termination of service. In this case, nowhere in the Statement of Claim or evidence the petitioner has mentioned that he is not employed for any gain, therefore he is not entitled for backwages. Similarly, no such statement is made by the respondent in his reply. Therefore, it is appropriate not to grant backwages to the petitioner till 17.08.2022, but from 17.08.2022 the petitioner is entitled for actual benefits. 17. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed against the respondent in following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 17.08.2022 is upheld to the extent of declaration of termination of services of the petitioner on 18.07.2007 as arbitrary, capricious and without inquiry. 17. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed against the respondent in following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 17.08.2022 is upheld to the extent of declaration of termination of services of the petitioner on 18.07.2007 as arbitrary, capricious and without inquiry. (ii) The grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as termination is violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, is set aside and instead of compensation, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service. The petitioner is entitled for notional benefits from 18.07.2007 to 17.08.2022, but from 17.08.2022 actual benefits with all wages. 18. The respondent is directed to comply with the award within three months. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition along with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 20. No order as to cost.