Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Learned Standing Counsel has pressed this writ petition only in so far as the relief of reinstatement has been granted by Labour Court with 50% back wages and contended that even if the Labour Court was right in holding that workman having completed 240 days in each year, has worked for about four years from 1988 to 1992, was entitled for protection of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) that would not automatically result in granting relief of reinstatement for the reason that workman was a daily wager, never recruited in accordance with provisions prescribed in law consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution, hence having worked for only four years could not have been allowed reinstatement with 50% back wages for a period of almost 12 years.

2. The workman was disengaged on 1.9.1992 and award was delivered on 4.9.2003 published on 26.4.2004 in Adjudication Case No. 484 of 1994. It is said that the award to this extent is contrary to law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court in catena of decisions.

3. Sri Siddharth, learned counsel appearing for respondent-workman submitted that once it is shown that workman was retrenched under Section 6-N of the Act the relief of reinstatement was obligatory which the Labour Court has granted and, therefore, no interference is called for. He placed reliance on Apex Court’s decision in R.M. Yellatti v. The Assistant Executive Engineer, 2006(1) UPLBEC 213 and a single Judge decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7133 of 1995, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. Meerut and another v. The Prescribed Authority, Industrial Tribunal (V), U.P. Meerut and another, 2002(3) ESC 32 (All). He further contended that Industrial Disputes Act does not make any difference between daily wager, casual, temporary, permanent etc. It talks of only a workman and, therefore, if a workman has wrongly been retrenched he is entitled for protection under Section 6-N of the Act and whenever such provision is violated the aggrieved workman must be given the relief of reinstatement and back wages.

4. To my mind the real issue before this Court taken up by learned Standing Counsel has not been appreciated on the part of respondents. In order to attract protection under Section 6-N of the Act it is no doubt true that a workman irrespective of nature of his appointment/employment would be entitled to be retrenched following the procedure prescribed under Section 6-N of the Act if he satisfies the condition that he has worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months from the date of such retrenchment. As a matter of proposition on this aspect neither there can be any dispute nor any has been raised, as a matter of fact, by learned Standing Counsel. The nature of appointment as such has nothing to do for application of Section 6-N. If one is a workman and has completed 240 days in an year, such a person, if not retrenched in accordance with procedure prescribed in Section 6-N, his retrenchment would be illegal.

5. That itself would not end the matter since the question would arise then as to what is the relief which he is entitled for. Whether mere declaration of retrenchment in violation of Section 6-N would result in an automatic relief of reinstatement with back wages and benefit of continuity in service or at the time of grant of relief the Court has to examine some other aspects.

6. The real crux lie at this dividing point, i.e., at the time of granting relief and not earlier. I have no doubt in accepting the submission of learned counsel for the respondent-workman that Section 6-N would apply to a workman irrespective of his nature of employment whether daily wage or otherwise. If he is retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 6-N, though he has completed 240 days in a year preceding his retrenchment, it would be illegal if procedure prescribed in the stature is not observed. But