through the records, this Court finds that in similar matter this Court has already passed order on 07.12.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 14814 of 2018 and come to a conclusion that order of reinstatement can be passed in exceptional cases and the normal rule is to award compensation in place of reinstatement. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the apex Court in the case of State of M.P and others Vrs. Lalit Kumar Verma reported in (2007) 1 SCC 575, Utranchal Forest Development Corporation Vrs. M.C.Joshi reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353, Sita Ram and others Vrs. Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute reported in (2008) 5 SCC75, Ghaziabada Development Authority and another Vrs. Ashok Kumar and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Jagbir Singh Vrs. Harayana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Badanala Irrigation Division, Kenduguda Vrs. Ratnakar Sahoo and another reported in 2011(Supp. .1) OLR 556. In view of the settled position of law as pronounced by the apex Court that reinstatement is not sine quanon for no-compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, this Court modified the award to the extent that the workmen are entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- each in lieu of reinstatement and rest part of the award was confirmed. The said order was challenged by the workman before the apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 14619 of 2019 and the apex Court after due adjudication, vide order dated 01.10.2021, modified the amount by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by this Court from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- to be made over to each of the
