Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation instead of back wages.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, that the workman was appointed as a Peon on daily wage basis on 2nd January, 1989 and continued to work in that capacity till 4th July, 1998 when his services was terminated on the ground that he was caught taking a bribe of Rs. 50/- for obtaining a photocopy of a document of the Nagar Palika and, leaking an official document of the Nagar Palika.

3. It transpires that upon a complaint being received, a trap was laid. The Executive Officer signed a Rs. 50/- note and through another person asked the workman to obtain a photocopy of a certain document, which he did upon accepting the money. The workman was caught red handed and the signed Rs. 50/- note of the Executive Officer was recovered. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the gravity of the charge did not hold any inquiry and accepting the confession of the workman terminated his services on the ground that he was a daily wager and that he was leaking out official documents of the Nagar Palika.

4. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of the reference was “whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 4th July, 1998? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to.”

5. Before the Labour Court, the workman contended that he was threatened with dire consequences that a first information report would be lodged and, consequently, he placed his signatures on a blank paper, which has been utilized as a confession letter. The workman denied that any such incident had taken place or that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 50/-.

6. On the other hand, the employers in their written statement contended that the workman was employed on daily rate basis as a Peon and that he was caught taking illegal gratification and accordingly, he was discharged without holding an inquiry. The contention of the employer was clear that the workman was a daily rated person and that it was not necessary for them to hold an inquiry. Before the Labour Court various documents were filed, evidence was led and the documents were proved.

7. The Labour Court, in its award, has given a categorical finding that Rs. 50/- which the workman had accepted has been proved and that the signature of the Officer on the note has also been proved as well as the confession letter of the workman. The Labour Court, however, held that the workman had worked from 1989 to 1998 for almost 9 years and had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. The Labour Court accordingly, held that the discharge of the workman without complying with the provision of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was illegal and that the workman was entitled for retrenchment compensation, which admittedly had not been given. The Labour Court accordingly, directed reinstatement of the workman and, instead of granting back wages, awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by the said award has filed the present writ petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the workman was appointed on a daily wage basis de hors the Rules and even though the workman may have worked for a considerable period of time, he was not entitled for reinstatement in the service. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, 2013 (1) ESC 94, wherein the Court after considering various case laws held that where the engagement of an incumbent was de hors the Rules, the mere fact that the provision of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was violated did