Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”) in LCR No.100162/2004 (162/2004) by which the lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been granted to each of the petitioners in lieu of their reinstatement in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners were engaged as Baldar in the Office of the respondents and they have worked with effect from 01.01.1986 till 01.01.1991 and their services were terminated without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to them, which has resulted in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'). 3. Counsel submits that all the petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and established the fact that their services were terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Counsel submits that even the Labour Court has recorded a finding in this regard, but in spite of passing an order of their reinstatement in service, only a petty amount of compensation, i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded to each of the petitioners. Counsel submits that the aforesaid amount is quite inadequate and if the order of reinstatement of the petitioners is not passed by this Court, at least suitable and sufficient amount of compensation be awarded to them, looking to the length of service rendered by each of them, i.e., 5 years. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the industrial dispute was raised by the workmen after a delay of more than 12 years, hence under these circumstances, the Labour Court has not committed any error in not passing the order of reinstatement of the workmen and adequate amount of compensation has been awarded to them, in lieu of their reinstatement, which requires no interference of this Court. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioners have worked in the Office of the respondents with effect from 01.01.1986 till 01.01.1991. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioners have worked in the Office of the respondents with effect from 01.01.1986 till 01.01.1991. This fact is also not in dispute that their services were terminated on 01.01.1991. This fact is also not in dispute that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioners after a delay of more than 12 years before the Labour Court. 7. Considering the above material aspect of the matter, the Labour Court passed the impugned award, directing the respondents to pay a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners in lieu of their reinstatement in service and it was found that the termination order of the petitioners was passed by the State in gross violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is whether the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the petitioners is sufficient or the same is liable to be enhanced by this Court. 8. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (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 and Ors. Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (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. 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. 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. 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. The 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. 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 beRs.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. Looking to the length of service of the petitioners rendered in the Office of the respondents with effect from 01.01.1986 till 01.01.1991, i.e., 5 years and considering the above 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 the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lakhs only) to each of petitioners, in lieu of their reinstatement in service. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) to each petitioner within a period of three months from today, after adjusting the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court (i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner). 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay enhanced amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) to each petitioner within a period of three months from today, after adjusting the amount of compensation awarded by the Labour Court (i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to each petitioner). In case, the enhanced amount is not paid to the petitioners within the stipulated time i.e. three months, then the petitioners would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment. 14. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court dated 13.11.2018 stands modified, in the above terms and the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. 15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.