ORDER : 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts pleaded and the prayer mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14231/2021 are taken into consideration. 3. The instant writ petitions have been preferred with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this petition may be allowed and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Award dated 26.7.2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur in case No. ITR 55/93 as also the directions given therein against the petitioners being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable be quashed and set aside. This Hon’ble Court may also be graciously pleased to pass any other and further order or direction as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humble non-applicant petitioners.” 4. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been made to the impugned award dated 26.07.2021, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) in ITR Case No.55/1993. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an industrial dispute was raised by the workmen through Union before the Tribunal, by way of filing a statement of claim, wherein it was pleaded that the workmen were engaged to promote a program, for utilization of fertilizer, run by the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that in the claim petition, it was pleaded that services of the petitioners were terminated in violation of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act of 1947”). Counsel submits that in the statement of claim, the contractor- M/s Grain Conservation and Warehousing Industries Private Limited was impleaded as party-respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as “the Contractor”) due to the engagement of workmen with the said Contractor and they were not in employment of the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that in the statement of claim, the contractor- M/s Grain Conservation and Warehousing Industries Private Limited was impleaded as party-respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as “the Contractor”) due to the engagement of workmen with the said Contractor and they were not in employment of the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that when the notices of the aforesaid claim were issued, the Contractor submitted its separate reply, wherein they admitted that the claim filed by the workmen through its Union was invalid, as the contract was executed by the Contractor with the petitioner-company on 09.06.1968 and the same remained continued till 30.06.1992 and after expiry of the said period, the contract was not extended for further duration and thereafter, the agreement between the petitioner-company and Contractor came to an end on 23.07.1992. Counsel submits that at the time of closure of the contract, the provisions contained under Section 25- F of the Act of 1947 were complied with and the payment of compensation and notice pay was made to the workmen through Demand Draft and the same was accepted by the workmen. Counsel submits that despite getting the aforesaid benefits, the dispute was raised by the workmen before the Tribunal through their Union which was not tenable, but this fact was overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. Counsel submits that when this fact has been established on record, not only by the Contractor in his reply, but also by some of the workmen by way of their admission in cross-examination, then there was no reason or occasion available with the Tribunal to pass the impugned award directing the petitioner to reinstate the workmen along-with 75% back wages. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workmen opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the services of the workmen were hired through Contractor and the payment of salary among other beefits was made available by the petitioner-company. Counsel submits that the company is still operating, even then, the services of the workmen were terminated in violation of the mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Counsel submits that the company is still operating, even then, the services of the workmen were terminated in violation of the mandate contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Counsel submits that one of the workman-Vinod Tiwari filed a separate statement of claim, i.e., LCR No.6/1993 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed vide award dated 26.04.2016 and directions were issued to the petitioner-company to reinstate him back in service. Counsel submits that a settlement has been arrived at between the petitioner-company and the said workman-Vinod Tiwari and a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid to him on 11.07.2017. 7. Counsel submits that once a finding of fact has been recorded in the case of Vinod Tiwari and the same was accepted by the petitioner-company, then the petitioner-company cannot be allowed to raise the same issue again that the workmen were not their employees. Counsel submits that taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the matter, the impugned award has been passed, which requires no interference of this Court. 8. In the rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the case of Vinod Tiwari, an ex-parte award was passed on 26.04.2016 and the petitioner-company was not aware about filing of the aforesaid statements of claim. Counsel submits that when the award was published in the gazette and the proceedings under Section 29 of the Act of 1947 were initiated, the matter was settled under the compelling circumstances. The matter was not adjudicated on its merits, and without hearing the stand of the petitioner, the award was passed in the case of Vinod Tiwari, hence, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the said award cannot be treated as final against the petitioners, as the matter remained uncontested before the Tribunal. Counsel submits that the reinstatement of the said workman-Vinod Tiwari was not possible as he has attained the age of superannuation, hence, under these circumstances, the matter was settled and a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- was awarded to him. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. Counsel submits that the reinstatement of the said workman-Vinod Tiwari was not possible as he has attained the age of superannuation, hence, under these circumstances, the matter was settled and a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- was awarded to him. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. Perusal of the record indicates that a promotional program was initiated by the petitioner-company for utilization of fertilizers and for the said purpose, the services of the workmen were hired in the year 1968 and they continued with the petitioner-company till June, 1992. Though, this fact has come on the record by way of filing reply, by the Contractor, that a contract was executed between them and the petitioner-company for its promotional program and the said contract continued till 30.06.1992 and subsequently, the said contract was not extended, hence, under these circumstances, the agreement between Contractor and the petitioner-company came to an end on 23.07.1992. 11. It is worthy to note here that after filing of the aforesaid reply before the Tribunal, the Contractor, i.e., M/s Grain Conservation and Warehousing Industries Private Limited, did not turn up and failed to produce any evidence in this regard. 12. It is settled proposition of law that a matter cannot be decided simply on the basis of the pleadings of the parties unless and until the relevant documents and the evidence are produced on record. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds no force in the arguments of the counsel of the petitioners that there was no direct relationship of the petitioner-company with the workmen and the workmen were not their employees. 13. This Court cannot lose its sight on an important aspect of the matter that under the similar circumstances, the services of one Vinod Tiwari were terminated and he raised the industrial dispute by way of filing a claim petition bearing LCR No.6/1993 and the said claim was allowed by the Tribunal vide award dated 26.04.2016 and similarly, a direction has been issued for his reinstatement in the petitioner-company. This fact is not in dispute that the award passed in the case of Vinod Tiwari was not assailed by the petitioner-company before any competent Court of law rather the matter was settled by way of making payment of compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to him, hence, under these circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the said award of Vinod Tiwari has become final and similar findings have been recorded by the Tribunal in favour of the present workmen as well. 14. Now, the question remains for consideration of this Court is that “whether the workmen are entitled to be reinstated back in service or not, when some of them have crossed the age of superannuation, one of the workmen has passed away and some of the workmen are approaching the age of superannuation?” 15. It is settled law, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act of 1947, and if employee proves it before the Court by leading cogent evidence that the employer has violated the aforesaid provisions, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 16. As per the recent trend of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held in number of cases that even if the termination is found to be illegal, reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lumpsum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement. 17. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. vs. Madanlal Tandon, AIR 2015 SC 2876 , dealt with the similar issue, and granted a lump-sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, looking to the length of service in employment of the petitioner in the said case. 18. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 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 Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 19. 18. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 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 Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right. 19. In Incharge Officer vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 , it was inter alia held that in those cases where the workmen 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 to them in lieu of reinstatement. 20. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal , (2014) 7 SCC 177 taking the trend further, the Hon’ble 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. 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 ). 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.” 21. 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. 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.” 22. 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.” 22. Looking to the length of service rendered by the workmen with effect from May, 1968 till June, 1992 as well as considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. (supra) and looking to the fact that under the similar circumstances, a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- has been awarded to another similarly situated person, i.e., Vinod Tiwari, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioner-company to pay a lump sum amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to each of the workmen in lieu of their reinstatement. The petitioner-company is directed to make payment of the aforesaid compensation amount to the workmen within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 23. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner-company fails to comply with the order passed by this Court within the above stipulated time, i.e., three months, then the workmen would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment. 24. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court stands modified in the above terms. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 25. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.