[2025:HHC:19800] IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.136 of 2025 Decided on : 08.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Appellants Versus Pal Singh ...Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellants: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. Ranjan Sharma, Judge The State of Himachal Pradesh, being the appellants, has come up before this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal assailing the Judgment dated 01.05.2024 [herein referred to as the Impugned Judgement] passed by Learned Single Judge, in CWP No.3551 of 2024, In re; The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. versus Pal Singh, whereby, the Award dated 10.01.2023 [herein, referred to as the ‘Impugned Award’] passed by Learned Labour Court- Cum-Industrial Tribunal was upheld with directions 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? [2025:HHC:19800] - 2 - to the appellants herein, to reinstate the respondent- employee; namely, Pal Singh herein with seniority and continuity in service from the date the demand notice was issued, except back wages. FACTUAL MATRIX LEADING TO AWARD: 2. The Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] was engaged as Beldar [Class-IV] on daily wage muster roll basis with the Respondent No.4-Executive Engineer HPPWD Division, Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988 and his services were allegedly disengaged in June 1999. The Respondent- Workman herein, raised an industrial dispute by issuing a Demand Notice on 13.08.2010. Pursuant to Demand Notice, conciliation proceedings were initiated and matter was sent to the appropriate Government on 30.06.2011 for framing reference but appropriate Government refused to make a reference on ground of delay and laches. 2(i). Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent-Workman filed a CWP No.2646 of 2013, seeking direction for framing a reference which was dismissed by this Court. Against orders of dismissal, the Respondent- Workman filed a Civil Appeal No.18012-18013 of [2025:HHC:19800] - 3 - 2017, which was decided on 06.11.2017, wherein, the appropriate Government was directed to consider framing of a reference, ignoring the objection in the matter and delay, within two months. In compliance of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid Civil Appeal, the appropriate Government framed a reference on 01.03.2018, which is Annexure P-2, in the writ file. After framing of a reference, the claim against illegal termination of June 1999 was adjudicated by Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal Kangra leading to the passing of an Award on 10.01.2003 [Annexure P-1 in Writ file]. 2(ii). Perusal of the Award dated 10.01.2023 [Annexure P-1] reveals that Respondent-Workman had assailed his termination of June 1999 for non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Tribunal Act [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] without issuing mandatory one month’s notice and without giving retrenchment compensation and by alleging violation of the principle of “Last Come First Go” by retaining juniors in service to be in violation of Section 25-G of the Act and alleging violation of [2025:HHC:19800] - 4 - Section 25-H of the Act by engaging fresh hands without considering the case of the Respondent- Workman for reemployment. 2(iii). Respondent-Workman filed the statement of claim, to which reply was filed by the Appellant- State. Thereafter, issues were framed, evidence was led and Reference No.23 of 2018 was answered in affirmative in terms of the Award dated 10.01.2023 [Annexure P-1], whereby, the claim alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Act was held to be not proved in Para 9 of the Award; and claim alleging violation of Section 25-G of the Act was also held to be not proved by Respondent-Workman; and the claim alleging violation based on Section 25-H of the Act was held to be proved by recording findings in Paras 11 & 12 of the Award by holding the Respondent-Workman entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and seniority since the year 2010 i.e. the date when the Demand Notice was issued by Respondent-Workman, except back wages. AWARD DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT: [2025:HHC:19800] - 5 - 3. Reference No. 23 of 2018 was answered by the Labour Court on 10.01.2023 [Annexure P-1, in Writ file], directing reinstatement with continuity in service and seniority from 2010 i.e. the date from which the Demand Notice was issued except back wages, in the following terms: “9. The petitioner has alleged in the claim that he has worked in continuity till his services were terminated and has completed 240 days in the preceding twelve calendar months. The respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the petitioner was not regular in his work and use to remain absent in between. The initial onus is to the petitioner to prove that he worked in continuity during the aforesaid period. Once the petitioner is able to discharge the onus to the prima-facie level only then the onus is shifted upon the respondent. The petitioner has not examined any witness on the record to depose about the fact that he had been seen the petitioner coming to his workplace regularly during the aforesaid period. The family members, relatives or co-worker of the petitioners could have turned as best witnesses to depose about these facts in his favour. Since none has been examined by the petitioner in support of such a plea, therefore, he has failed to prove this plea. He has not attributed any motive to the employer to prepare a fictitious mandays chart for him. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove that he had worked in continuity w.e.f. July, 1998 to June, 1999. The mandays chart Ext.RW1/C cannot be, therefore, disputed and has to be relied upon. As per this document, the petitioner has worked for total 82½ and 85 days in two years and if these days are combined together even then the number of working days fail to touch the benchmark of 240 minimum working days. When such is the position, the respondent was not [2025:HHC:19800] - 6 - bound to comply with the provisions contained in Section 25-F (a) of the Act, and therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove that there has been violation of Section 25-F of the Act. 10. The petitioner has contended that workmen junior to him were retained and his services were terminated orally and there is violation of Section 25-G of the Act. The petitioner in his petition has pleaded specifically in para no.4 that the junior workmen to him namely Shri Shashi Pal and Smt Roshani Devi having been engaged on 6.4.1999 and 4.7.1999 Smt. Manta w/o Shri Hans Raj and Shri Inder Singh s/o Shri Narayan Singh engaged on 1.1.2000 and were retained while petitioner's services were terminated. The respondent has replied these averments and contended that Shri Shashi Pal s/o Shri Bihari Lal has worked in continuity, and therefore, his services were retained, whereas, Smt. Mamta and Inder Singh were engaged on compassionate grounds and there can any parity with them and the petitioner. The mandays chart of one Shri Shashi Kant s/o Shri Bihari Lal has been tendered on record as Ext.PW1/D. There is no mandays chart of Shri Shashi Pal. It appears that the petitioner has inadvertently referred Sh. Shashi Kant as Sh. Shashi Pal as, the father's name of both these workman has been shown as Shri Bihari Lal. The services of the petitioner were disengaged in June 1999, whereas this Shashi Kant was engaged in the year 2000, and therefore, Shri Shashi Kant was not junior to the petitioner at the time of termination of the services of the petitioner. Infact Shri Shashi Kant was not engaged on the date when the services of the petitioner were terminated. There is no denial of the fact by the petitioner that Smt. Mamta and Inder Singh were not engaged on compassionate grounds. Otherwise also, the date of their engagement is also shown by the petitioner himself as 6.4.2000 and 1 1.2000 г.е. much after the services of the petitioner were already terminated. These two workmen are also not junior of the petitioner for the purpose of Section 25-G of the Act Even Roshani Devi w/o [2025:HHC:19800] - 7 - Shri Nag Ram is shown to have been engaged on 4.7.1999, whereas, the services of the petitioner have been terminated in June, 1999. Thus Smt. Roshani Devi was not in service while services of the petitioner were terminated. All these workmen are thus not the juniors of the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner has failed to prove that workmen junior to him were retained. In fact it is proved from the record itself that the services of the aforesaid workmen were engaged after the services of the petitioner were already terminated. 11. The petitioner has further contended that fresh hands were engaged by the respondent after his termination without giving him priority. According to him he was never called back to work when fresh labour was required. The respondent, on the other hand, has come up with the simple plea that the petitioner has himself left the job, and therefore, there was no requirement of calling him back in service. As has already been held hereinabove. that the services of the petitioner were terminated as the respondent has failed to prove the plea of abandonment, therefore it was duty of the respondent to have called the petitioner back when fresh hands were required. The petitioner has tendered on record the mandays chart of Shri Shashi Kant s/o Shri Bihari Lal as Ext.PW1/D. He was engaged in January 2000 and he has worked upto the year 2006 as a daily wager. His services are said to have been regularized. Since the services of the petitioner are prove to have been disengaged in June 1999, therefore Shri Shashi Kant was certainly a fresh hand and the requirement of the law was to give the petitioner priority while engaging fresh hands. Since the petitioner was not called and not given priority by the respondent therefore, there is violation of Section 25-H of the Act in this case. The petitioner has sworn his affidavit Ext.PW1/A and in his cross- examination he has specifically denied that he had himself left the work. The respondent has examined Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Assistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer as RW1 He has tendered his affidavit [2025:HHC:19800] - 8 - Ext.RW1/B. He has silent about the status of Shri Shashi Kant. He referred to one Shri Shashi Pal and stressed upon the fact that the petitioner has left the work at his own. Since it is already held that the services of the petitioner were terminated as the plea of abandonment is not established, therefore, it was the duty of the respondent to summon the petitioner and give him priority in the matter of engagement before calling for the fresh hands. Since no evidence has been led by the respondent to the effect that petitioner was called and asked to join the work before engagement of Shri Shashi Kant s/o Shri Bihari Lal, therefore violation of Section 25-H of the Act is established, and the petitioner is entitled for the relief on account of the violation of this provision by the respondent. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the respondent has violate the provisions contained in Section 25-H of the Act after the services of the petitioner were terminated. Issue no. 1 is decided accordingly. 16. Thus from the aforesaid material it is established that the services of the petitioner were terminated in June 1999 and the respondent caused violation to the provision contained in Section 25-H of the Act in the year January 2001 when the services of Shri Shashi Kant were engaged as a fresh hand without giving preference and opportunity is entitled for the relief of reinstatement. Since the petitioner has raised the demand in the year 2010, therefore, he is held not entitled to the relief of back-wages. Moreover there is no specific evidence on the record to prove that he remained without any work for long 24 years after his termination. The petitioner is also entitled to the relief of continuity in the seniority since the year 2010 when the demand was raised by him. Both these issues are held decided accordingly. [2025:HHC:19800] - 9 - RELIEF 17. In view of my above discussions, the claim petition succeeds in part and is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner is entitled for seniority and continuity in service from the date of the demand notice except back wages. Parties are left to bear their costs.” CHALLENGE TO AWARD DATED 10.01.2023, BEFORE WRIT COURT IN CWP No 3551 OF 2024 : 4. Award passed by Learned Labour Court on 10.01.2023 [Annexure P-1, in Writ file] was assailed by the State Authorities before Writ Court in CWP No.3551 of 2024, in Re: State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. versus Pal Singh, leading to the passing of the judgment dated 01.05.2024 [referred to as “Impugned Judgment”] dismissing the writ petition by upholding of the Award dated 10.01.2023, in the following terms: “15. Though at this stage, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that since workman never worked after June/August 1999, Tribunal below has erred in ordering the continuity and seniority, but this Court finds no force in the aforesaid submissions of learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that once there is ample material available on record suggestive of the fact that services of the workman were illegally terminated on June/August 1999, despite there being availability of work, which fact stands substantiated on account of the fact that persons junior to [2025:HHC:19800] - 10 - the workman were not only retained, but their services were subsequently regularized, Tribunal below rightly ordered reinstatement of the workman with continuity and seniority. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.” GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.05.2024 IN INSTANT LPA: 5. Appellants-State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge, on the ground firstly, that the legal position has not been appreciated and secondly, Learned Labour Court and Learned Single Judge upheld reinstatement by ignoring the delay of 14 years in filing claim petition; and thirdly, the Award and the Judgment directing reinstatement is erroneous in law as the Class-IV workers are engaged at three different stages i.e. daily wager, work charged and regularization is not tenable. 6. Heard, Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate, for the Respondent and have gone through the case records. ANALYSIS: [2025:HHC:19800] - 11 - 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances; and the material available in the Writ file and the instant appeal, this Court is of the considered view, that the Award dated 10.01.2023 [Annexure P-1 in writ file] and Impugned Judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside; with modified relief(s) of lump sum compensation, in view of the discussion made here-in-below, for the following reasons: Perusal of Para 9 of the Award dated 10.02.2023 [Annexure P-1] and the factual matrix contained in Para 10 of Impugned Judgment dated 01.05.2024, indisputably reveals that as per the Man-days Chart Ext.RW-1/C, the Respondent-Workman, Pal Singh, had worked as a Beldar only for 82½ days during year 1998 and for 85 days [upto June 1999] under the respondents. Indisputably, since the Respondent-Workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding twelve calendar months, therefore, Learned Labour Court recorded a categoric finding that due to non-completion of 240 days of continuous service in preceding twelve [2025:HHC:19800] - 12 - calendar months, there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act and this finding does not need any interference in these proceedings. Further, so far as the claim alleging violation of Section 25-G of the Act and the principle of “Last Come First Go”, is concerned, Labour Court recorded specific findings in Para 10 of the Award that Respondent-Workman was disengaged in June 1999 whereas, none of the alleged junior-incumbents, namely Shashikant, Roshani, Mamta and Inder were retained at the time of disengagement of Respondent-Pal Singh, and there was no violation of Section 25-G of the Act and these findings do not require any interference in instant proceedings. So far as challenge alleging violation of Section 25-H of the Act, Learned Labour Court accepted the plea of the Respondent-Workman that after his disengagement in the month of June 1999, the Appellants-State Authorities have employed fresh incumbent(s) Shashikant, Roshani, Mamta and Inder in January 2000 {as mentioned in Para 11 of Award] and in view of this, Learned Labour Court answered the reference, by directing the [2025:HHC:19800] - 13 - reinstatement of Respondent-workman with continuity in service and seniority from the date the demand notice was issued by the workman in the year 2010, except back wages. 8. In above factual backdrop, this Court proceeds to analyze the contentions of the Learned Counsel(s) for the parties herein, as under: 8(i). First contention of Learned State Counsel is that Learned Single Judge had not appreciated the factual and legal position while passing the impugned judgment dated 01.05.2024. The above contention of Learned State Counsel has merit, for the reason, that a perusal of Impugned Judgment [Para 14] indicates that Learned Single Judge has upheld the Award, on the assumption, that the persons junior to Respondent -Workmen were retained in service while disengaging him in June 1999. The above finding recorded in Para 14 of the impugned judgment appears to be contrary to factual matrix and the findings recorded by Labour Court in Para 10 of the Award dated 10.01.2023, to the effect that no junior to the [2025:HHC:19800] - 14 - Respondent-Workman was retained in service as on June 1999 and there was no violation of Section 25-G of the Act, therefore, the findings recorded by Learned Single Judge in Para 14 that juniors were retained is contrary to the findings recorded by the Labour Court in Para 10 of the Award. Accordingly, the findings in Impugned Judgment dated 01.05.2024 being contrary to the findings in the Award dated 10.01.2023 needs to be interfered with, in the instant proceedings. 8(ii). Second contention of Learned State Counsel is that the claim petition was filed before the Labour Court after a delay of 14 years and this aspect has been ignored by Learned Single Judge while directing reinstatement with continuity in service and seniority from the year 2010 except back wages. The above contention of Learned State Counsel carries weight, for the reason that the normal rule is that in case the termination of a workman is contrary to law [Section 25-F and Section 25-G of ID Act] then, reinstatement is to [2025:HHC:19800] - 15 - be ordered but the instant case is an exception to the same, for the reason that, the Respondent- Workman in terms of the findings recorded in Award and Impugned Judgment had only worked under the appellants as per the Man-days Chart [Ext.RW-1/C] only for 82½ days in 1998 and 85 days upto June 1999 with appellants-Authorities. Since, the Respondent-Workman had worked for 167 days only in two years i.e. 1998-1999 and had neither completed 240 days of continuous service either in 1998 and 1999 nor in preceding twelve calendar months, thereafter, after taking into account the parameters mandated by law [which are discussed in succeeding paras of this judgment] instead of reinstatement, lump-sum compensation was awardable. The impugned Award passed by Learned Labour Court as well as the Impugned Judgment passed by Learned Single Judge ignoring material aspects as to whether the right of reemployment was to accrue automatic and/or such a right was to be resorted to in case fresh incumbents were employed after following due process of law including Articles [2025:HHC:19800] - 16 - 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and whether in the fact-situation of this case, lump sum compensation was awardable, which was ignored, and therefore, the Impugned Award as well as the Impugned Judgment cannot sustain. Ordered accordingly. 8(ii-a). While dealing with the claim of daily wager [worked for about two years] for reinstatement viz-a-viz compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Man Singh and other connected cases, (2012) 1 SCC 558, has mandated that in case, retrenchment was illegal, for procedural non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act in case of daily wagers who do not hold a post but had worked for more than 240 days viz-a-viz a permanent employee therefore, instead of reinstatement, the lump-sum compensation, would meet the ends of justice, in the following terms: “2. The respondent workmen worked with the appellant as casual counsel for labourers on daily wages during the year 1984- 1985. Due to non-availability of work, their services were terminated in the year 1986. No notice or retrenchment compensation was given to them before terminating their services. After about five years, they raised an industrial dispute in the year 1991. The appropriate Government [2025:HHC:19800] - 17 - referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court vide its award dated 27-5-2005 ordered reinstatement of the respondent workmen on the same post which they were holding at the time of their termination. 3. The award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the Department by filing writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of this case, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Department. The appellant is thus before this Court. 4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as "daily wagers" and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27-5-2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs 2 lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim, within six weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.” 8(ii-b). While analyzing the claim of daily wager [2025:HHC:19800] - 18 - [served for eight months] for reinstatement viz-a-viz monetary compensation as full and final settlement the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another versus Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136, that in case of wrongful termination of a daily wager who had worked for short period, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Award of lump sum compensation would be in consonance with demand of justice by taking into account relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the grounds on which the termination has been set-aside and delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, in the following terms: “27.In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising [2025:HHC:19800] - 19 - its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. 28. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in BSNL v. Man Singh. That was a case where the workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984- 1985, were terminated without following Section 25-F. The industrial dispute was raised after five years and although the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement of the workmen which was not interfered by the High Court, this Court set aside the award of reinstatement and ordered payment of compensation. In paras 4 and 5 of the Report this Court held as under: "4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as 'daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice." 29. In light of the above legal position and having regard to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 1-3-1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 1-3-1991 to 31-10-1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its [2025:HHC:19800] - 20 - judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge 25 as well as the Division Bench26 of the High Court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award dated 28-6-2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs 50,000 by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum.” 8(ii-c). While examining the claim of daily wager [who served for about 15 years] for reinstatement viz-a-viz lump sum compensation in case of violation of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177, has outlined that since the daily wager who has been retrenched cannot claim regularization as of right and has no right to continue even as a daily wager in view of procedural non-compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act and such non- compliance was liable to be rectified by resorting to the termination of a workman again after complying with the provision of Section 25-F coupled with [2025:HHC:19800] - 21 - the fact that long period had elapsed therefore, instead of reinstatement, the monetary compensation would serve the purpose, in the following terms: “5. In the claim statement filed by the respondent before the CGIT, the respondent stated that he had been working as a Lineman with the appellant from 1.7.1987 and worked in that capacity till 27.04.2002 on daily wage basis. He also stated that on 17.11.2001, while repairing the fault of a telephone, he suffered electric shock and due to this accident, he sustained injuries. He was admitted in a hospital. He was not paid his salary from August 2001 to April 2002. His services were illegally terminated with effect from 28.04.2002. 19.2 It is also held that the respondent had worked for almost 15 years i.e. 01.07.1987 to 27.04.2002. 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 a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that 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. The 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 [2025:HHC:19800] - 22 - 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. 35. We would, however, like to add a caveat here. There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularized under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied. 36. Applying the aforesaid principles, let us discuss the present case. We find that the respondent was working as a daily wager. Moreover, the termination took place more than 11 years ago. No [2025:HHC:19800] - 23 - doubt, as per the respondent he had worked for 15 years. However, the fact remains that no direct evidence for working 15 years has been furnished by the respondent and most of his documents are relatable to two years i.e. 2001 and 2002. Therefore, this fact becomes relevant when it comes to giving the relief. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that the need of lineman in the telephone department is drastically reduced after the advancement of technology. For all these reasons, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 37. In Man Singh (supra) which was also a case of BSNL, this Court had granted compensation of Rs. 2 Lakh to each of the workmen when they had worked for merely 240 days. Since the respondent herein worked for longer period, we are of the view that he should be paid a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. This compensation should be paid within 2 months failing which the respondent shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this judgment. Award of the CGIT is modified to this extent. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The respondent shall also be entitled to the cost of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in this appeal.” 8(ii-d). Discussing the claim-rights of daily wager [who served for about 2½ years] for reinstatement viz-a-viz lump sum monetary compensation as full settlement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in District Development Officer and Another versus Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298 has mandated that the Labour Court is bound to take [2025:HHC:19800] - 24 - into account the duration or tenure of employment, coupled with the long gap since disengagement and the fact that the employer did or did not resort to unfair labor practice is a relevant factor which has to be taken into account, by Labour Court, while directing reinstatement, in the following terms: “12. Having gone through the entire record of the case and further keeping in view the nature of factual controversy, the findings of the Labour Court, the manner in which the respondent fought this litigation on two fronts simultaneously, namely, one in the civil court and the other in the Labour Court in challenging his termination order and seeking regularisation in service, which resulted in passing the two conflicting orders one in the respondent's favour (Labour Court) and the other against him (civil court) and lastly, it being an admitted fact that the respondent was a daily wager during his short tenure, which lasted hardly two-and-half years approximately and coupled with the fact that 25 years have since passed from the date of his alleged termination, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down by this Court in BSNL v. Bhurumal would aptly apply to the facts of this case and we prefer to apply the same for disposal of these appeals. 14. We have taken note of one fact here that the Labour Court has also found that the termination is bad due to violation of Section 25-G of the Act. In our opinion, taking note of overall factual scenario emerging from the record of the case and having regard to the nature of the findings rendered and further the averments made in the SLP justifying the need to pass the termination order, this case does not fall in exceptional cases as observed by this Court in para 35 of BSNL case due to finding of Section 25-G of [2025:HHC:19800] - 25 - the Act recorded against the appellant. In other words, there are reasons to take out the case from exceptional cases contained in para 35 because we find that the appellant did not resort to any kind of unfair practice while terminating the services of the respondent. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in BSNL case. 16. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a total sum of Rs 2,50,000 (Rs two lakhs fifty thousand) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim reinstatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute.” 8(ii-e). Reiterating the principles regarding the claim of a daily wager [who served for one year] for reinstatement and back wages viz-a-viz claim for monetary compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in State of Uttrakhand and Another versus Raj Kumar (2019) 14 SCC 353, that in case of a daily wager whose services were dispensed with without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Act coupled with the fact that such daily wager has no right to continue and his services [2025:HHC:19800] - 26 - were liable to be dispensed with again after complying with procedural mandate of Section 25-F of the Act and the fact that the daily wager had no right of regularization and delay in raising an industrial dispute are relevant factors which are to be taken into account by the Industrial Tribunal/Courts while directing reinstatement viz-a-viz the award of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, in full and final settlement of claim(s), has been spelt out, in the following terms: “11. Here is also a case where the respondent claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year or so in PWD of the State; secondly, he had no right to claim regularisation; thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court. 12. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the respondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussed by this Court in para 34 of the judgment rendered in BSNL. 13. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of reinstatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in BSNL case. 14. Having regard to the totality of the facts [2025:HHC:19800] - 27 - taken note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim reinstatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute in place of Rs 30,000 awarded by the Labour Court. Only to this extent we modify the award of the Labour Court in quantum of award of compensation by enhancing it from Rs 30,000 to Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh). 15. Let the payment of Rs 1,00,000 be paid by the appellant State to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned orders of the High Court in the writ petition and the review application are set aside. The award of the Labour Court dated 25-2-2015 is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above.” 8(ii-f). After scanning the rights of daily wager [who had served for eight years] for reinstatement viz-a-viz lump sum compensation towards the final settlement of all claims, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh versus Executive Engineer PWD, (2021) 14 SCC 815, has held that once the workman has failed to establish by way of evidence that the juniors were retained and no finding was recorded regarding unfair labour practice then, in case the termination was resorted to for non-compliance of Section 25-F, then in such an eventuality, suitable [2025:HHC:19800] - 28 - compensation as per the mandate of law in the case of Raj Kumar [supra] was held to be the appropriate relief, in the following terms:- “7. In the light of the state of the law, which we take note of, we notice certain facts which are not in dispute. This is a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant's service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The authority involved in this case, apparently, is a public authority. At the same time, it is common case that the appellant was a daily wager and the appellant was not a permanent employee. It is relevant to note that, in the award answering Issue 1, which was, whether the termination of the appellant's service was justified and in order, and if not, what was the amount of back wages he was entitled to, it was found, inter alia, that the appellant could not adduce convincing evidence to establish retention of junior workers. There is no finding of unfair trade practice, as such. In such circumstances, we think that the principle, which is enunciated by this Court, in the decision, which is referred to in Raj Kumar, which we have referred to, would be more appropriate to follow. In other words, we find that reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25-F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy. 8. In such circumstance, noticing that, though the appellant was reinstated after the award of the Labour Court in 2006, the appellant has not been working since 2009 following the impugned order, and also taking note of the fact that the appellant was, in all likelihood, employed otherwise, also the interest of justice would be best subserved with modifying the impugned order and directing that in place of Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), as lump sum compensation, appellant be paid Rs. 3.25 lakhs (Rupees Three [2025:HHC:19800] - 29 - Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand), as compensation, taking into consideration also the fact that the appellant had already been paid Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation.” 8(ii-g). On the issue regarding the claim of a daily wager for reinstatement viz-a-viz the award of monetary compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Dubey versus MPPKVV Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 001198 / 2025 [arising from SLP (C) No(s) 20902 of 2024] has mandated that in case of procedural non-compliance of Section 25-F of IDA Act, reinstatement for non-compliance was not mechanical whereas in such a fact-situation, even monetary or lump sum compensation, based on the principle of proportionality, shall meet the ends of justice, in the following terms:- “5. On 06.09.2024, this Court had issued notice in the matters limited to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court as it agreed with the observation of the High Court that in every case where termination is found to be illegal, the grant of reinstatement cannot be applied mechanically. Where such a termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect such as in violation of Section 25F of ID Act, this Court has consistently taken a view that in lieu of reinstatement the grant of monetary compensation shall meet the ends of justice. 8. However, we do not find the grant of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand [2025:HHC:19800] - 30 - only) as compensation by the High Court to be adequate and just in the facts and circumstances of the present matters. The amount of sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is too nominal and unjust considering that the appellants were working as Operator TA Grade with the respondent. Additionally, the High Court while passing the impugned order has also lost sight of the fact that each of the appellant had served for a varying duration of time and a blanket/uniform grant of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation in differing cases shall not meet the ends of justice and will be in contravention with the principle of proportionality. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent of enhancement of compensation as directed above which is to be paid within three months from today. Further, any payment made to the appellant(s) under Section 17B of the ID Act shall be set off while calculating the final amount to be paid. Additionally, the respondent shall be at liberty to consider the re-engagement of the appellant(s) in view of the provisions contained in Section 25H of the ID Act.” 9. Based on the discussion in Paras 7 & 8 including the mandate of law in Paras 8(i) to (ii-g) supra and the factual matrix, it is not in dispute that the Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] had served with the State Authorities only for a total about 167 days during two calendar years 87 ½ days in 1998 and 85 days upto June 1999] as per man- days Ext.RW-1/C, which is clear from the Award [2025:HHC:19800] - 31 - [Annexure P-1] in Writ file. The services of the Respondent-Workman were alleged to have been disengaged in the month of June 1999, but he chose to sleep over his rights/remedies for ten years till he woke up from the slumber by issuing a demand notice on 13.08.2010. Further, the claim of the Respondent-Workman alleging violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was held to be not proved by Labour Court. Even violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act was held to be not proved by Labour Court. The claim based on Section 25-H of the ID Act was held to be proved by Labour Court by recording a finding that one Shashi Kant, a fresh incumbent was engaged on 01.01.2010 [as in Ext.PW-1/D in Para 11 of Award] but before employing fresh incumbent(s), the State Authorities were bound to consider the claim of Respondent-Pal Singh for reemployment in terms of Section 25-H of ID Act and therefore, reinstalment was ordered with seniority and continuity in service from the date of demand notice, except back wages. In above backdrop, this Court is of [2025:HHC:19800] - 32 - the considered view that the findings recorded by Learned Labour Court in its Award dated 10.01.2023, with reference to violation of Section 25-H of the ID Act and the resultant directions for reinstatement ; which had remained undisturbed in the Judgment dated 01.05.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge is erroneous in law, for the reason, that firstly, Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act has been erroneously invoked by the Labour Court; and secondly, the provision of Section 25-H of the ID Act confers a right only on “retrenched workman”, whereas, Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] has failed to establish that he was a retrenched workman for non-compliance of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Act ; and thirdly, even the provision of Section 25-H of the Act and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Act [Central Rules] confers a limited opportunity to “retrenched workman” to be considered for reemployment before filling up the advertised vacancy; and fourthly, the provision of Section 25-H and Rule 78 cannot be permitted to be invoked where, fresh persons were employed [2025:HHC:19800] - 33 - by a back door method and that too by giving a complete go-bye to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India ; and fifthly, if fresh persons were employed by giving a complete go-bye to the constitutional scheme of public employment i.e. without the availability of a sanctioned post, without advertising the post, without inviting applications from eligible persons, without determining the comparative merit as per the procedure for selection established by law and this non-adherence, overlooking or discarding the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others versus Umadevi & Others (2006) 4 SCC 01, by jettisoning the procedure established by law, even if such an employment is on daily wages or contractual or temporary or regular will ipso-facto render the back-door employment of fresh persons illegal and contrary to the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and sixthly, [2025:HHC:19800] - 34 - the provision of Section 25-H of the ID Act and Rule 78 of the I.D. Rules have to succumb to the constitutional scheme of public employment and these provisions cannot be permitted to be invoked or applied so as to perpetuate illegality by extending benefit of reemployment to the Respondent-Workman {Pal Singh} with persons who were employed afresh but their employment was contrary to and dehors the constitutional scheme ; and seventhly, Articles 14 recognizes positive discrimination and the same does not in any manner encompasses negative parity, which is being sought for and has been granted by the Labour Court in terms of the Award with the persons who were employed afresh [namely Shashikant, Roshani, Mamta and Inder] on daily wagers and moreover, when, these fresh incumbents were not employed on a sanctioned post, but was a backdoor employment by ignoring the established procedure in law; and eighthly, the directions for reinstatement, for violation of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot sustain, when, the employment given to fresh incumbents on daily [2025:HHC:19800] - 35 - wagers, included two incumbents namely Mamta and Inder, who were engaged on compassionate grounds by way of an exception to Articles 14 & 16 to tide over the sudden crises accruing on death of their respective relative(s) who were Government servants. In addition to this, once the employment of two other fresh incumbents was without a sanctioned post and was also without advertising any vacancy and without intending to adhere to the minimum requirements of selection therefore, the plea of Respondent workman herein for automatic reemployment cannot be permitted to perpetuality illegality, which reveals patent perversity in the Impugned Award dated 10.1.2023, which was not addressed by the Learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgement dated 1.5.2024. Lastly, even the mere non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-H and Rule 78 of the I.D. Rules, cannot be sole basis for directing automatic reinstatement with continuity in service for the reason that this preferential right of re-employment accrues, only in case of “retrenched workman” and that too when, [2025:HHC:19800] - 36 - an employer intents to fill up fresh vacancy after due advertisement in terms of the mandate of law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Management of the Barara Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. versus Workman Pratap Singh, Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17975 of 2014], in following terms: “16. Section 25(H) of the ID Act applies to the cases where employer has proposed to take into their employment any persons to fill up the vacancies. It is at that time, the employer is required to give an opportunity to the “retrenched workman” and offer him re-employment and if such retrenched workman offers himself for re-employment, he shall have preference over other persons, who have applied for employment against the vacancy advertised. 17. The object behind enacting Section 25 (H) of the ID Act is to give preference to retrenched employee over other persons by offering them re-employment in the services when the employer takes a decision to fill up the new vacancies. 24. In our view, the Labour Court was, therefore, justified in answering the reference in appellant’s favour and against the respondent by rightly holding that Section 25(H) of the ID Act had no application to the facts of this case whereas the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) was not right in allowing the respondent’s prayer by directing the appellant to give him re-employment on the post of Peon.” 10. Second contention of Learned State Counsel is that the Learned Labour Court and the Learned [2025:HHC:19800] - 37 - Single Judge directed reinstatement with continuity in service in favour of Respondent-Workman but by ignoring delay of 14 years which was alleged to be erroneous. The above plea of Learned State Counsel, carries weight, for the reason, that the Respondent- Workman [Pal Singh], was allegedly disengaged in June 1999. The material on record, reveals that after the disengagement and even after employing alleged fresh incumbents, he slept over his rights and remedies till issuance of a demand notice after 10 years on 13.08.2010. The delayed claim raised by a workman cannot confer an automatic right of reinstatement with continuity in service, even though without back wages. Besides other factor as discussed in Para 7 & 8 of this judgment even delay in raising a claim is certainly another relevant factor has to be taken note of by the Labour Court as to whether respondent is to be given a lump-sum monetary compensation as full and final settlement of claim is to be attributable to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, [2025:HHC:19800] - 38 - Learned Labour Court has eschewed this material aspect-factor while passing the award, which is good enough to overturn the impugned Award, qua reinstatement. Even the Labour Court has not considered the judgments passed by the Division Bench in case of Devi Singh [LPA No. 229 of 2014 Annexure P-6] and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in case of Gitam Singh [CA No.8415 of 2009 Annexure P-7], which dealt with the issue that claim for reinstatement was not automatic but lump-sum compensation was awardable in fact situation of a case, as in this case. The Division Bench of this Court, in LPA No. 229 of 2014, titled as The Executive Engineer versus Devi Singh, decided on 23.05.2017 [Annexure P-6 in Writ file] as reiterating the settled position of law, that if disengagement of a daily wager is illegal then, reinstatement is not the only option. Even damages can be awarded to a workman taking into account the duration of service, nature of job and other circumstances, in the following terms:- “3. In this Letters Patent Appeal, so filed by the State, in our considered view, the only issue, which arises for consideration, [2025:HHC:19800] - 39 - is as to whether learned Single Judge was right in holding the petitioner entitled to consequential benefits, including seniority, continuity in service and back wages or not. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Court has to adopt an equitable approach. Law with regard to re-engagement of a workman is now well settled. If disengagement is illegal, re-engagement is not the only option. Damages can be awarded to the workman……” 11. Third contention of Learned State Counsel is that reinstatement could not have been granted by Learned Labour Court and further affirmed by Learned Single Judge when, Class-IV incumbents are engaged at three different stages i.e. daily wager, work charge and regular and in these circumstances, reinstatement is not automatic. The above contention of Learned State Counsel has merit, for the reason, that Respondent- Workman [Pal Singh] was engaged on daily wages but without a sanctioned post and that too by a backdoor procedure dehors the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Even the duration of work is only 167½ days in a span of two years. No Scheme or Policy existed at the relevant time during 1998-99 i.e. on the date of alleged termination, providing [2025:HHC:19800] - 40 - for regularization of a daily wager on completion of two years of daily waged service even without 240 days of continuous service during such period and therefore, in absence of any such Scheme- Policy for regularization, no right of regularization accrued either existed or was available nor any such right of regularization had accrued to the Respondent-Workman. Even, the Labour Court has recorded a specific finding that Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Act were not violated. For mere non-compliance of Section 25-H, reinstalment could not have been granted and that too in the fact situation of in instant case, wherein, the fresh incumbents [Shashikant, Roshani, Mamta and Inder] were employed by Appellants-State Authorities herein, by giving a complete go-bye to established constitutional scheme of public employment which was approved by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) i.e. without there being a sanctioned post and without advertising any such vacancy. Indisputably, once the fresh incumbents {Shashi and Roshani} were employed [2025:HHC:19800] - 41 - by acting contrary to the established constitutional scheme dehors the constitutional scheme of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India {but by excluding Mamta and Inder who were compassionate appointees} and the employment of the above two fresh incumbents was illegal and void ab initio then, the Learned Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement to the Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] herein by invoking Section 25-H of the ID Act erroneously by ignoring that similarity cannot be extended to perpetuate illegality. While discussing the claim of the Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] vis-à-vis above named fresh incumbents, since the above referred fresh incumbents were not party respondents in the proceedings before Labour Court and Writ Court, therefore, the discussion made herein, shall neither be construed nor shall these observations be relied upon, in any manner, to the prejudice/ disadvantage of the aforesaid fresh incumbents. These observations are only to be construed for testing the validity of the claim of the Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] herein, and [2025:HHC:19800] - 42 - the impugned Award and the Impugned judgement directing reinstatement and that too by ignoring the material aspect that lump-sum compensation, was awardable to the Respondent-workman, if the fact-situation of instant case. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, titled as The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs Surajmani & Anr., decided on 06.02.2025 has re-affirmed that the employment/appointment even as a daily wager cannot be resorted to without following constitutional mandate in the case of Umadevi (supra) i.e. without there being a sanctioned post and without resorting to advertisement, inviting applications or comparative merit and considering all eligible persons, which has been spelt out in the following terms: “12. It is further underscored that this judgment would necessarily be a judgment in rem and the State shall hence forth not take recourse to employing personnel as daily wagers but shall make appointments only in accordance with law, as enumerated in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1].” Thus, as per the mandate of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Surajmani (supra) [2025:HHC:19800] - 43 - that the State Authorities henceforth, shall not take recourse to employing persons as daily wagers therefore, in these circumstances and by taking into account all relevant factors and the law in Paras 7 & 8 supra, the Respondent-Workman cannot be employed or reinstated by granting parity with fresh persons whose employment was illegal and void. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement, lump-sum compensation/monetary compensation shall meet the ends of justice. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-WORKMAN: 12. Learned Counsel for the Respondent- Workman, Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, supports the Impugned Judgment dated 01.05.2024 contending that he deserves to be reinstated in service with continuity service, except back-wages. Contention of Learned Counsel for the the Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh] in claiming reinstatement with continuity in service, except back wages is not tenable, in fact-situation of instant matter. However, in order to main a balance between the right of the Respondent-workman vis-à-vis the State Authorities in view of the fact that the [2025:HHC:19800] - 44 - Respondent-workman had worked only for about 167½ days in a span of two years during the period from 1998-1999 ; and the fact that there was no violation of Section 25-F and Section 25-G as per the findings recorded by the Learned Court in its Award ; and the fact that the Respondent slept over his rights and remedy for about 10 years from June 1999 till 13.8.2010 i.e. date of demand notice ; and neither any scheme nor any policy for regularization existed which provided for regularization of daily wagers after mere completion of two years or 167 days of daily waged service at the relevant time; and the State authorities had employed fresh persons in 2000 and the Respondent-workman still slept over his rights/ remedy he served a demand notice in 2010 ; and persons employed on fresh basis were employed dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment by a back door method cannot be permitted to jettison recognized parameters of public employment as per the mandate of law in case of Uma Devi (supra) and when, the employment of fresh persons [2025:HHC:19800] - 45 - was illegal and dehors the constitutional scheme therefore the Respondent-workman could not either claim or be granted parity, so as to perpetuate illegality which is impermissible; and when as per the mandate of law in the case of Surajmani (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has mandated that the Appellants-State Authorities shall hence-forth not take recourse to employing personnel on daily wage basis but shall make appointments only in accordance with law ; and moreover, in the backdrop of the above facts and in view of the mandate of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Man Singh, Gitam Singh, Bhurumal, Satish Kantilal Amrelia, Raj Kumar, Ranbir Singh, Lenin Kumar Ray, Amit Kumar Dubey and Mahedo Krishna Naik (supra), the Impugned Award dated 10.1.2023 passed by Learned Labour Court in directing reinstatement with continuity in service with continuity in service and seniority from the date of demand notice issued in the year 2010 except back wages, by ignoring these material factual and legal aspects as discussed above and when, in [2025:HHC:19800] - 46 - such a situation, the lump sum compensation was awardable which would secure the ends of justice. Even, Impugned Judgment dated 1.5.2024 passed by Learned Single Judge upholding the directions qua reinstatement by recording finding in Para 15 that juniors were retained, was per-se contrary to the findings recorded in Para 10 of the Award being contrary to the records cannot sustain. Accordingly, the Impugned Award as well as the Impugned Judgement needs to be interdicted and are accordingly set-aside; with modified directions that the Respondent-workman [Pal Singh] shall be entitled to and shall be granted the lump sum monetary compensation of Rs. 2.5 Lac [Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand] in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, towards full and final settlement of the claim. Accordingly, the directions passed by Labour Court, as well as the Learned Single Judge, shall stand modified to this extent. 13. Before parting with this case and taking into account the mandate of law in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey, Civil Appeal No. 001198 of [2025:HHC:19800] - 47 - 2025 [arising out from SLP(C) No. 20902 of 2024 and directions contained in Paras 9 & 10 (supra), this Court leaves it open to the State Authorities, to consider the case of the Respondent-Workman- Pal Singh herein, for re-employment in view of Section 25 (H) of the Act, in future, subject to compliance of mandate of law in case of Uma Devi reiterated in the case of Surajmani (supra) in accordance with law. DIRECTIONS: 14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is partly allowed, with modified directions herein, in the following terms: (i). Impugned Judgment dated 01.05.2024, passed by Learned Single Judge, in CWP No.3551 of 2024, in Re: State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. versus Pal Singh, upholding the reinstatement of Respondent-Employee with continuity in service, with seniority, is quashed and set-aside; (ii). Award dated 10.01.2023 [Annexure P-1] passed by Learned Labour Court, ordering reinstatement with continuity in service with seniority is quashed and set-aside; [2025:HHC:19800] - 48 - (iii). Sequel to the direction (i) and (ii) above, Appellants-State Authorities are mandated to grant lump sum compensation of Rs.2.5 Lac [Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand) in lieu of reinstatement to Respondent-Workman [Pal Singh], towards full and final settlement of claim; within a period of two months from today; (iv). Failure to release monetary compensation as in directions No (iii) shall entitle the Respondent-Workman herein to interest at rate of 7% per annum thereafter till realization; and (v) Costs made easy for respective parties. In aforesaid terms, the instant appeal is disposed of and all the pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge May 08, 2025 [Shivender/tm]