Order : (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.) 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 and all these writ petitions are decided by this common order. 2. Challenge has been made by the petitioner-company to the awards passed by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court”) by which the statements of claim submitted by the respondents-workmen (hereinafter referred to as “workmen”) have been allowed and their termination orders have been quashed and set-aside with direction to the petitioner- company to reinstate them in service along-with 40% back-wages. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid awards passed by the Labour Court, these writ petitions have been preferred in the year 2017- 2018 wherein by way of passing an interim order in some of the writ petitions, the orders of back-wages have been stayed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that during pendency of these writ petitions, applications under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1947”) were submitted before the Labour Court and the same were allowed and the petitioner-company has been directed to pay the amount as determined by the Labour Court to the workmen. Those cases are also listed along-with the bunch of writ petitions, where the award passed by the Labour Court, quashing the termination, has been challenged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that all the workmen were engaged on different posts in the petitioner- Company, when their services were terminated, thereafter they approached the Labour Court by way of filing their statements of claim. Learned counsel submits that the statements of claim submitted by such workmen were allowed and their termination orders were quashed and set-aside with direction to the petitioner-coporation to reinstate all of them in service with back- wages. Learned counsel submits that in some of the matters i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition bearing Nos.9588/2017, 11617/2018, 12267/2018, 12225/2018, 1642/2018, 12227/2018 & 12765/2018, compromise has been arrived at between the parties and such matters were settled out of the Court. Learned counsel submits that looking to the long service rendered by these workmen, the matter was settled by granting them lumpsum amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5.50/6 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. Learned counsel submits that looking to the long service rendered by these workmen, the matter was settled by granting them lumpsum amount of compensation i.e. Rs.5.50/6 lacs in lieu of reinstatement. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner- company is ready to settle the dispute with each workman, provided these matters are disposed of by granting suitable amount of compensation to them in lieu of reinstatement. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the workmen opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-company and submitted that all the workmen have discharged their duties for a considerable time i.e. for more than 10 years, hence, looking to their length of service, they all are entitled to be reinstated in service and they are also entitled to get the back-wages, as awarded to them by the Labour Court. Learned counsel submits that after passing of the award by the Labour Court, the same has been assailed by the petitioner-company before this Court where applications under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 were submitted and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Workmen, Hindustan V.O. Corporation Ltd. Versus Hindustan Veg. Oils Corporation Ltd. & others reported in 2000 (86) FLR 804 , such applications are liable to be disposed of expeditiously, prior to disposal of the writ petition. Learned counsel submits that in these writ petitions, the application filed by the workmen under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 are still pending consideration, hence, such applications are required to be decided first. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the workmen were engaged by the petitioner-company on different posts and their services were terminated on different occasions. All the workmen felt aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the petitioner-company due to which they raised an industrial dispute by way of submitting different statements of claim. It is worthy to note here that the claim petitions submitted by each workman were allowed by the Labour Court and the petitioner-company has been directed to reinstate, all of them in service with backwages. 8. It is worthy to note here that the claim petitions submitted by each workman were allowed by the Labour Court and the petitioner-company has been directed to reinstate, all of them in service with backwages. 8. It appears that some of the matters i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.9588/2017, 11617/2018, 12267/2018, 12225/2018, 1642/2018, 12227/2018 & 12765/2018, which were submitted before this Court, were settled between the parties by granting lumpsum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the tune of Rs.5.50/6 lacs to the workmen by the petitioner-company. It is worthy to note here that all these matters were decided in the year 2018 to 2021 and thereafter, considerable time has passed. 9. It is a settled proposition of law that reinstatement is not rule of thumb in each and every matter. The matter can be settled by granting lump-sum amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back-wages as this view has been recently taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation versus Mahadeo Krishna Naik while deciding Civil Appeal No.13834/2024 vide order dated 14.02.2025. The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that in such like matters, the Courts may, providing justification for its approach, direct such lumpsum compensation to be paid keeping in mind the interest of the employee as well as the employer. 10. As per the recent trend of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well this Court, it has been held 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. 11. In the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Courthas 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. 12. In Incharge Officer and Ors. Vs. Man Singh reported in (2012) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Apex Courthas 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. 12. In Incharge Officer and Ors. Vs. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 , it was inter alia held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in those cases where the workman had worked on daily wage basis, 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. 13. In BSNL vs. Bhurumal reported in (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. 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.” 14. 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 in 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 `1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been `2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `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`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.” 15. Looking to the fact that services of the workmen in the present cases were terminated more than one and a half decades back, somewhere in the year 2008, much time has passed by till now. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 15. Looking to the fact that services of the workmen in the present cases were terminated more than one and a half decades back, somewhere in the year 2008, much time has passed by till now. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to award all of them an adequate amount of compensation in lieu of their reinstatement. 16. This fact is not in dispute that in the earlier rounds of litigation, the matter was settled between the parties by granting lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.5.50 lacs or 6 lacs to the workmen, therefore under these circumstances, after looking to the length of service regarding the workmen i.e. more than ten, fifteen and twenty years, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioner-company to pay a lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to each of the respondent- workmen in lieu of their reinstatement. The reason for awarding Rs.10,00,000/- to the workmen now in this year 2025 is the increase of dearness and adding the amount awarded by the Labour Court in the proceedings under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947. 17. Looking to the fact that the main writ petitions pertaining to the termination orders since have been decided by the present order granting lump-sum amount of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) to the workman as full and final settlement for all purposes by this Court, hence, no further orders are required to be passed in such writ petitions challenging the order passed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947. This order would merge in the orders passed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act of 1947 by the Labour Court. The respondent-workmen would not be entitled to get other amount towards due wages, as they are going to receive lump-sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards full and final settlement for all purposes in lieu of reinstatement. 18. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. The impugned order stands modified, in the above terms. 19. It is made clear that petitioner-company would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 20. 18. With the aforesaid observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. The impugned order stands modified, in the above terms. 19. It is made clear that petitioner-company would comply with the order passed by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 20. In case, the petitioner-company fails to comply with the order passed by this Court, the workmen would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the award by the Labour Court till the date of its actual payment. 21. Stay application as well as applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.