ORDER : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Alwar (hereinafter referred as ‘Labour Court’) by which the statement of claim filed by the respondent- workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) has been allowed and the termination order dated 19.10.2000 has been quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to reinstate the workman back in service along with 25% amount of back wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman was engaged as driver in the Educational Institution of the petitioner. The petitioner-institution, due to vacancy on the post of Electrician, shifted the workman on the said post but the workman denied to work there and he himself did not join the services, resulting into abandonment of the services. Counsel submits that the instant case is not a case of termination of service of the petitioner rather it is a case of abdonment of services on the part of the workman. Counsel submits that these facts were not appreciated by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is not sustainable. In alternative, he submitted that even otherwise also, the petitioner-institution is ready and willing to give a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that workman was appointed on the post of Driver on 01.02.1999 and his services were illegally terminated by the petitioner-institution vide order dated 19.01.2000, without issuing any notice and without giving any compensation in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that these facts were pleaded by the respondent-workman before the Labour Court, wherein, a finding was recorded in his favour and it was held that the workman has worked with the petitioner-institution for more than 240 days in a calendar year and the provisions contained under Section 25 of the Act of 1947 were not complied with, that is why his termination order passed by the petitioner- institution has been quashed and set aside with the direction to reinstate the workman back in service with continuity along 25% of back wages. Counsel submits that a reasoned and cogent order has been passed by the Labour Court, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Since the facts pleaded are not in dispute that the workman has worked with the petitioner-institution with effect from 01.02.1999 till 19.01.2000 i.e. for a period of 11 months, and various versions and cross versions with regard to termination/abdonment of service has been pleaded by both sides before the Labour Court as well as before this Court, and on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and documents led by both sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that it is a case of violation of mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, a finding of fact has been recorded which cannot be disturbed by this Court in the instant petition. 6. Now the question which remains for consideration of this Court is as to whether looking to the total length of service of the workman i.e. 11 months and looking to the fact that the termination order was passed in the year 2010 and more than 25 years have passed whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated back in service or he can be granted adequate amount of compensation, looking to the services rendered by him. 7. 7. It is the settled proposition of law, decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court through catena of judgments that if a workman claims that there is a violation of the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the said provisions, then the Court can pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 8. 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, the reinstatement is not a rule of thumb. It has been held that lump-sum amount of compensation can be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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.” 12. 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.” 13. 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, this Court deem it just and proper to enhance the award of compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 14. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered 11 months’ service and more than 25 years have passed in between, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with directions to the petitioner to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement. 15. 14. Looking to the fact that the workman has rendered 11 months’ service and more than 25 years have passed in between, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition with directions to the petitioner to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement. 15. The petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the workman would be entitled to get interest at the 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till its actual payment. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned award dated 25.10.2018 stands modified in above terms. 17. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. 18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.