JUDGMENT - V.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---The petitioner, (hereinafter referred to as the Kamgar Sabha) in this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act. The respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) is a public limited company having its office at Ghodbunder Road, Thana. It manufactures fuel injection equipments. On or about 31st October, 1964, the Employer had in its employment about 150 workmen. The workmen of the Employer appears to have become the members of the Kamgar Sabha in or about August, 1963, and the said Kamgar Sabha seems to have been recognised as such Union by the Employer. A dispute are between the Union and Employer in the month of March, 1964, over the termination of services of three workmen. The dispute seems to have been referred to the arbitration of one Shri P.D. Savakar on 11th April, 1964. The arbitrator directed re-instatement of these three workmen. The Employer did there after re-instate these workmen. An agreement also seems to have been entered into between the workmen and Employer before the Conciliation Officer on 31st March, 1964, with regard to certain increments. The disputes arose over the "alleged" reluctance of the Employer to give effect to the said increments. The Employer then is alleged to have introduced a change in the service conditions of the workmen, service of six workmen were terminated by the Employer. The workmen then commenced as sit down strike with effect from 10.00 a.m. on 31st October, 1964. The said strike continued upto 2nd November, 1964. By a notice dated 2nd November, 1964, all the workmen were called upon under a notice to resume work by 10.00 a.m. that day. Negotiations then seem to have started and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour also seems to have intervened, but without any success. Ultimately the Employer resorted to a lock-out. The Employer then called upon the workmen to show cause and explain their conduct in resorting to sit down strike within 48 hours. None of the workmen showed cause. By a cyclostyled letter dated 16th December, 1964, services of all the workmen were terminated on their failure to show such cause. Under the said notice the workmen also were invited to apply for recruitment afresh whose cases will be considered on their own merits. None of the workmen so applied. None of the workmen showed cause. By a cyclostyled letter dated 16th December, 1964, services of all the workmen were terminated on their failure to show such cause. Under the said notice the workmen also were invited to apply for recruitment afresh whose cases will be considered on their own merits. None of the workmen so applied. The Employer then seems to have engaged new workmen and since then has been carrying on its work. It was not disputed before us that now the strength of the workmen employed with the Employer has increased to 350. In due course, the Kamgar Sabha raised a demand of re-instatement of all the workmen by a notice dated 12th August, 1965. A board of Conciliation was then constituted by the Government on 12th April, 1967 consisting of a representative of the Labour Commissioner, the Employer and the Kamgar Sabha. All of them asked the Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The dispute was then referred on 25th March, 1968. Under the said reference the dispute as to the re-instatement of 110 workmen was referred to the labour Court. A corringendum was issued by the Government on 25th April, 1969, giving the names of all these 110 workmen. The Presiding Officer of the Third Labour Court ultimately tried the reference and decided it on 26th February, 1974. The Labour Court found that the dismissal of the workmen was unjustified and wrongful. It was found that the action of dismissal was punitive and the same was taken by the Employer without following the required procedure. In stead, however, granting the relief of re-instatement to all these workmen, the Labour Court granted compensation in lieu of re-instatement as detailed in the annexure to his Award. It appears that amongst the total number of 111 workmen in the list, name of one workmen was duplicated. Hence the reference concerned only 110 workmen. He rejected the reference with regard to the workmen at serial Nos. 8, 101 and 109 of the reference, and granted relief only to remaining 107 workmen. The Employer does not seem to have challenged the validity of this Award. The Union representing the workmen, however, has challenged the same in this Special Civil Application. Mr. He rejected the reference with regard to the workmen at serial Nos. 8, 101 and 109 of the reference, and granted relief only to remaining 107 workmen. The Employer does not seem to have challenged the validity of this Award. The Union representing the workmen, however, has challenged the same in this Special Civil Application. Mr. Damania, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends that once the dismissal of the workmen was found to be mala fide, unjustified, punitive and wrongful, the Labour Court was bound to follow the normal rule of re-instatement and granting relief of compensation in lieu of re-instatement was not justified, at any rate, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He drew attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of (M.L. Bose and Company (Private) Ltd. Calcutta v. Its Employees)1, 1961(2) L.L.J. 107 and also some other cases in which mere delay in the adjudication of a dispute or employment of some other workmen by the Employer was considered not to be a sufficient or good ground for refusing re-instatement. It is no doubt true that mere delay in making the reference or the disposal thereof by the Labour Court by itself cannot be a ground for refusing re-instatement, when the dismissal of the workmen is found to be wrongful and the Employer is show to have acted which handedly and in gross violation of the binding Rules of service. However, re-instatement in such cases is merely to be an ordinary rule and such rule cannot be said to be without some exceptions. Cases may arise where re-instatement may be found to be inexpedient on several grounds. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has given several reasons indicating why he found it inexpedient to grant relief of re-instatement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus he took notice of the fact that about 327 workmen were found to be working in the factory of the Employer and all of them were made permanent. He secondly, found that all of them had worked in the Company for nine years by the date when the Labour Courts was called upon to deliver his Award. They were found to have worked longer in the concern even than the workmen who were found by him to have been wrongly dismissed. He secondly, found that all of them had worked in the Company for nine years by the date when the Labour Courts was called upon to deliver his Award. They were found to have worked longer in the concern even than the workmen who were found by him to have been wrongly dismissed. He then took notice of the fact that some of the workmen then the working with the Employer were constrained to file complaints at the Police Station against the workmen who were dismissed and whose claims were being investigated by the Labour Court. The Labour Court inferred from this that the relations between the Employer and the dismissed employees continued to be strained and it would not be in the interest of industrial peace to re-instate such workmen. Thirdly, he took notice of the fact that 70 out of 107 workmen were already employed and some of them were found to be working under conditions of service. It is unnecessary to refer to other grounds relied on by the Labour Court. It is not possible to hold that he above grounds are not relevant of germane. It cannot be said to be merely a question of the Employer taking advantage of his own wrong, which undoubtedly is bound to be a consideration in favour of re-instatement and against the refusal therefore. The question is one of the dislocation, of the industry as also up-rooting of the workmen found to have been employed continuously for about nine years. As observed by the Labour Court, the Supreme Court itself considered this to be a relevant circumstance in the case of (Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen)2, 1959(2) L.L.J. 26 . It is difficult to find any fault with the order of the Labour Court in this behalf. We do not think it advisable to interfere with the same in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Mr. Damania then contends that the compensation granted by the Labour Court of the workmen is far too inadequate and it failed to take notice of the fact that in the absence of any good reasons, there was no reason why the workmen should have been deprived of the back wages which ordinarily should have followed as a corollary to the finding of the dismissal being wrongful and unjustified. We find much force in this submission of Mr. Damania. We find much force in this submission of Mr. Damania. Finding that the dismissal is wrongful, ordinarily entitles the workmen to re-instatement as also the back wages for the period from the date of such wrongful dismissal till they are actually re-instated. The Employer has to pay this amount by way of damages as a consequence of the dismissal being found to be wrongful, even though the workmen not turned out any work for the Employer. The workmen get entitled to this claim, in additions to the re-instatement on the hypothesis that they were prevented from doing the work and driven to forded leisure as a result of the wrongful act of the Employer. When re-instatement is refused inspite of the dismissal being found to be wrongful, the workmen also are entitled to compensation in lieu of the re-instatement. In other words, the workmen are entitled to relief on two counts, viz., back wages in lieu of damages for proceed leisure and, secondly compensation in lieu of re-instatement. The learned Labour Court seems to have totally lost sight of these two bases of the claims of the workmen in such situations. He has only taken into account the period of service of each one of the workmen. The learned Judge has divided the workmen into three categories, viz. those having jointed the work before 30th December, 1960, those who jointed thereafter, and those who had jointed the service only three months before the strike, and awarded two years salary for first category, one years salary for the second, and three months salary by way of compensation to those who were employed for three months only. His order does not give an indication as to why the workmen were found disentitled of claim back wages or any compensation in lieu thereof. It is also not understandable as to what is the basis for the actual quantum of the compensation made payable by him under his Award. Mr. Sawant, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Employer, tried to support the order of the Labour Court as to compensation by reference to few cases of the Supreme Court. It is also not understandable as to what is the basis for the actual quantum of the compensation made payable by him under his Award. Mr. Sawant, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Employer, tried to support the order of the Labour Court as to compensation by reference to few cases of the Supreme Court. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) (Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Santi Patnaik)3, 1966(1) L.L.J. 398 (2) (Assam Oil Company Ltd)4, 1960(1) L.L.J. 587 as also (3) (Ruby General Insurance Company v. Its Workers)5, 1970(1) L.L.J. 63 . According to Mr. Sawant, it is permissible for the Industrial Court to award consolidated compensation for both the counts by reference to the period of service rendered by the workmen with the Employer. We are afraid, the judgments relied on by Mr. Sawant do not lay down any such proposition. In all these three cases the question of back wages does not appears to have fallen for consideration at all, the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution having been confined only to the quantum of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Discussions of the facts indicate in all these cases that back wages were paid in some measure of the other and the special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted only on the question of compensation in lieu of re-instatement. It is for determining the compensation in lieu of re-instatement that reference to the period of service seems to have been made by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court. It is not possible to draw and inference merely from these circumstances that such compensation was found adequate by the Supreme Court for both these two counts. The order of the Labour Court also does not indicate that the compensation awarded by him was considered by him to be a consolidated one on both these counts. The Labour Court obviously seems to have misunderstood the ratio of these cases or the observations made by the learned Judges in these case, and seems to have fallen into error in assuming that the compensation in lieu of re-instatement would alone meet the claim of the workmen on both these counts. The Labour Court obviously seems to have misunderstood the ratio of these cases or the observations made by the learned Judges in these case, and seems to have fallen into error in assuming that the compensation in lieu of re-instatement would alone meet the claim of the workmen on both these counts. As indicated earlier, the Labour Court has not even made any attempt to indicate the basis of his order, though he has taken pains to record the finding very carefully with regard to all other disputed questions in his exhaustive judgment. The amount of compensation so granted by the Labour Court cannot, therefore, be considered adequate and we shall have to arrive at the same by the material at our disposal, as remand of this case to the Labour Court for decision afresh is bound to drag on the litigation unnecessarily. This course will not be appropriate having regard to the fact that the workmen were deprived of their jobs from 31st October, 1964, and the litigation dragged on since then till this date. Coming to the claim of the workmen on the first count as to back wages, ordinary rule is to grant back wages for the entire period from the date of the dismissal to the date of re-instatement. As the re-instatement is not found expedient, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, the workmen can be said to have been lawfully removed from service only from the date of the award, viz., 26th February, 1974. Ordinarily they would thus be entitled to full wages for the period from 31st October, 1964 till 26th February, 1974, and the quantum of wages would be the same which the workmen would have earned in the ordinary course had they remained in employment and discharged duties to their Employer. This would include revision in the wages from time to time, as also the dearness allowance and also the bonus to which other workmen of the concern have been found entitled to in the ordinary course of their employment. No reasons or grounds were suggested in the course of arguments why these workmen could not have been entitled to all the benefits had they remained in service nor was it suggested to us that the workmen would have been liable to be removed either on account of superannuation of on any other ground whatsoever. Mr. No reasons or grounds were suggested in the course of arguments why these workmen could not have been entitled to all the benefits had they remained in service nor was it suggested to us that the workmen would have been liable to be removed either on account of superannuation of on any other ground whatsoever. Mr. Sawant, however, contends that about 70 workmen have been found to have succeeded in getting permanent jobs somewhere else during this period and as such amounts earned by them during this period are liable to be deducted from the above wages. This proposition is really unreceptionable. He also further contends that even other workmen not permanently employed till the date of the award succeeded in getting some jobs temporarily at some other places and did succeed in earning some income or the other during this period. It is obvious that the Employer is entitled to deduct such incomes of all these workmen which they earned during all this period from some other sources, whether as permanent employees or temporary or casual workers. In fact, Mr. Damania did not seriously dispute this position. About 107 out of 110 workmen, examined themselves at the trial to indicate what income they earned from other sources during this period. Though Mr. Sawant contended that some of the workmen earned even far more than is actually indicated in the evidence, he was fair enough to concede that it will not be possible for him to press for exclusion of any more amounts than are indicated in the evidence of the workmen at the trial. At our instance Mr. Damania submitted a statement as to what income these 107 workmen earned from other sources during this period from 31st October, 1964 to 26th February, 1974. With the consent of the parties the same is marked as Exhibit II. The total these earnings by all these 107 workmen comes to Rs. 15,58,890.75. It was not disputed that such income earned by each one of the workmen is liable to be deducted from the amount of back wages that the Employer will ultimately be liable to pay to all these workmen by way of back wages. Mr. The total these earnings by all these 107 workmen comes to Rs. 15,58,890.75. It was not disputed that such income earned by each one of the workmen is liable to be deducted from the amount of back wages that the Employer will ultimately be liable to pay to all these workmen by way of back wages. Mr. Sawant, however, contends that it will not be possible for the Employer to bear the burden of the total back wages which, according to these tailed statement prepared by him, comes to the total amount of Rs. 45,50,967.68. This statement was prepared by Mr. Sawant at our instance. Correctness of the figures mentioned therein and the information indicated thereby was not disputed before us by Mr. Damania, except with regard to the figures mentioned in column 8, indicating what amounts were earned by the workmen during this period. As indicated earlier, the true figure of such earnings by these 107 workmen is indicated by the statement furnished by Mr. Damania and marked by us as Exhibit II. This statement furnished by Mr. Sawant is marked by us as Exhibit I with consent. According to Mr. Sawant, any order directing payment of back wages to the extent of this huge amount is bound to cause great hardship and even dislocation of the industry as well as of the 350 workmen already employed with the Employer and majority of whom have been found to have been working with the Employer for the last nine years. With the consent of the parties, Balance-Sheet of the Company for the year ending 31st December, 1974, is marked by us as Exhibit III. It appears from the Balance-Sheet that a sum of Rs. 4.62 lacs has been kept ear-marked for the payment of such compensation to the workmen. The figure tallies with the amount made payable by the Employer tot he employees under the impugned Award and which amount is found by us to be inadequate for the reasons indicated above. The Balance-Sheet as on 31st December, 1974, however, indicate that reserves and surplus of the Employer stands at Rs. 14,40,786 and the current assets, loans and advances of the Employer amount to Rs. 83,38,668. It also appears that the Company transferred a sum of Rs. 5,72,508 to its General Reserve. The Balance-Sheet as on 31st December, 1974, however, indicate that reserves and surplus of the Employer stands at Rs. 14,40,786 and the current assets, loans and advances of the Employer amount to Rs. 83,38,668. It also appears that the Company transferred a sum of Rs. 5,72,508 to its General Reserve. Ordinarily capacity of the Employer is indeed not directly relevant where the workmen are found entitled to damages for the wrongful fact of the Employer. However, as indicated by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, dislocation of the industry cannot be said to be entirely an irrelevant factor, when the consequences of the wrongful act of the Employer happen not only to get the industry, and particularly the employment of a large number of workmen while passing any order for such compensation, the Court also shall have to enquire that the workmen, for whose benefit the order is being passed, ultimately succeed in reaping the fruits thereof. In this way, even the capacity of the Employer cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant. Looked at from this point of view, it cannot but the held that the burden of back wages to the tune of Rs. 45,50,967.68 is comparatively too heavy for the small concern to bear. We had already directed the learned advocates to indicate to us that the retrenchment compensation would amount to for all these 107 workmen had these workmen been retrenched on 26th February 1974, when the Award was delivered at the rate of 15 days salary per year of service made payable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Even the figure of such compensation comes to Rs. 5,05,790.38. In our opinion, eromity of the burden involved and the capacity of the Company-Employer shall have to be borne in mind by us while determining the amount of back wages and compensation for these workmen. Mr. Sawant also drew out attention to the Circular letter issued by the employer on 16th December, 1964. We have already made a reference to it, while reciting the facts of this case. It appears that after the workmen went on sit-down strike and refused to join recruits without prejudice to their claims, rights and continued and thus seek to mitigate the quantum of compensation. We find some substance in this contention. Now, it is true, as contended by Mr. It appears that after the workmen went on sit-down strike and refused to join recruits without prejudice to their claims, rights and continued and thus seek to mitigate the quantum of compensation. We find some substance in this contention. Now, it is true, as contended by Mr. Damania, that the workmen were not bound to give up their claims or accept any humiliating terms. Even so, it is difficult to ignore the fact that if no work was available any where else, the workmen certainly could have accepted the job offered under this notice without prejudice to their claims, rights and contentions and continued their tight for their larger legal claims through such means as were available to them under the law of the land. This appears to us to be all the more so, when the workmen were represented by the Union like the Kamgar Sabha. The claim of the workmen that they were unable to get work immediately or get any job for this long period of 9 years shall have to be accepted with a pinch of salt, once it is found that they had an opportunity to accept the job the work inspite of the notice of the Employer and after the efforts of the Deputy Labour Commissioner to bring about a settlement failed, the Employer invited all the workmen under this Circular dated 16-12-1964 to apply for service as fresh recruits and it was indicated that their such applications would be considered on their own merits. That such circular was issued and served on all the workmen is not disputed before us on behalf of the Kamgar Sabha by Mr. Damania. Mr. Sawant contends that under the ordinary law of damages, the person claiming damages is under an obligation to mitigate the quantum thereof and for that purpose make every attempt to get service somewhere else and thus mitigate the quantum of damages. He also further contends that the kind of work capable of being performed by the workmen in this case is not such which could have disabled them form getting employment anywhere else. According to Mr.. Sawant, there was no reason why the workmen should not have joined the Employer as fresh even from this company, without giving up their claim and mitigate the quantum of compensation. The circumstances also indicate that the Employer did not have any grievance against the workmen. According to Mr.. Sawant, there was no reason why the workmen should not have joined the Employer as fresh even from this company, without giving up their claim and mitigate the quantum of compensation. The circumstances also indicate that the Employer did not have any grievance against the workmen. Their grievance seems to have been confined to three workmen. Who violated orders in the beginning, and six workmen, who refused to work according to the changed conditions of service. Even if it is assumed that the entire move was directed against the victimisation of the workmen indulged in trade Union activities, such basis or malic can be said to have been confined only to few of them. This circumstances, therefore, shall have to be taken into account, while determining the quantum of back wages. The refusal by the Employer of terms of compromise on some other basis, suggested by the Labour Commissioner, has no relevance to this point. Mr. Sawant then contends that the reference in this case itself was made on 25th March, 1968 about three and half years after their services were terminated and even the defect in the reference to enable the Court to proceed with the hearing was not removed till after one year. According to Mr. Sawant, even if the dismissal is found to be wrongful and Employer is found guilty of some acts of commission and omission the impossible penalty even by way of damages cannot be disproportionate to his actual such acts of omissions and commissions. The Employer, contends Mr. Sawant, should not be made liable to pay for back wages for all this period if the reference itself was not made for five years and could not be disposed of by the Tribunal for about further five years till 26-2-1974. There is some force in this contention of Mr. Sawant. But then it is not possible to hold even the workmen accountable for this delay, as nothing is shown to us from which the workmen can be held liable for this delay either in marking the reference or disposal thereof by the Labour Court. There is some force in this contention of Mr. Sawant. But then it is not possible to hold even the workmen accountable for this delay, as nothing is shown to us from which the workmen can be held liable for this delay either in marking the reference or disposal thereof by the Labour Court. Ordinarily the circumstances that the process of making reference as also disposal of reference by the Labour Court should take a long time and the Employer and the employee have both of suffer therefore is a circumstances which cannot be used in favour or against either of these parties, when the question of determining the quantum of damages really arises. However, it is difficult for us to ignore certain peculiar features of this case. It was indeed a case of mass dismissal of workmen which necessitated immediate employment of other workmen to enable the industry to function. Even if the Employer and employees are not found responsible for this entire delay of nine years, the question that the employer is ultimately being penalised for certain years, the question that the employer is ultimately being penalised for certain factors over which he had absolutely no control cannot altogether be ignored, when the amount of damages threatens to cause dislocation in the industry resultantly penalising not only the Employer but also about 350 workmen who happen to be employed in the industry as also a good productive work that is indirectly solving the problem of the society. We are very reluctant to disturb the law so far followed in the matter of determining the quantum of back wages. However, distinction shall have to be made between the instance where one or few of the large number of workmen are dismissed and the instance where the workers are dismissed in mass forming back bone of the industry, which cannot afford to continue functioning without immediate recruitment of new hands. Without, therefore, disturbing the law followed so for by the Industrial Courts in these matters, we find it difficult to ignore the impact of these circumstances in the peculiar facts of this case, while determining the basis of the back wages payable to these workmen. Without, therefore, disturbing the law followed so for by the Industrial Courts in these matters, we find it difficult to ignore the impact of these circumstances in the peculiar facts of this case, while determining the basis of the back wages payable to these workmen. Our attention also was drawn to few cases where sometime half of the back wages were directed to be paid along with re-instatement, on the dismissal being found to be wrongful and also cases where one-third of such back wages were directed to be paid. We, were however, unable to trace out the basis for such treatment having regard to the scanty material available at our disposal. After giving our anxious consideration to all the circumstance and aspect of this case discussed above we think that ends of justice would be met if we direct the Employer to pay back wages to the employees at 50 percent of what they would have ordinarily earned had they remained in service, and not dismissed so wrongfully, during the period from 30th October, 1964 till 16th February, 1974. While calculating the wages payable to the workmen, the revisions in salaries introduced in the pay scales in force in this industry as also the dearness allowance at rates inforce from time to time and also bonus payable to them in the event of their having remained in service, shall have to be taken into account. After finding out what 50 percent of such wages would be the Employer will be entitled to deduct therefrom the amounts earned by the workmen concerned from their permanent or temporary or casual employments. Our attention was drawn by Mr. Sawant to few workmen, who had joined the work with the Employer only a few days before the impugned wrongful dismissal was effected. The Labour Court has also taken notice of this fact and has granted lessor compensation to them. They are workmen indicated at serial Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 63 and 75 in the statement Exhibit I submitted by Mr. Sawant. Their corresponding numbers in the reference also are indicated in the second column of the said statement. We find such substance in the contention of Mr. They are workmen indicated at serial Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 63 and 75 in the statement Exhibit I submitted by Mr. Sawant. Their corresponding numbers in the reference also are indicated in the second column of the said statement. We find such substance in the contention of Mr. Sawant that even on the finding that they were wrongful dismissed, payment of back wages even at the rate of 50 per cent of the wages would not be just we, therefore, direct that these workmen should be paid at 25 percent of the wages which would have been found payable to them had they remained in service. The earnings made by them during this period also will be liable to be deducted from the amount of 25 percent so found due to them. The Labour Court itself had rejected the claim of the workmen mentioned at serial Nos. 8, 101 and 109 at the list forming the part of the reference. Mr. Damania strongly urged that reasons given by the Labour Court for rejection of their claims are not justified. Dismissal of the first two is found to have been unconnected with the strike while third one did not enter witness box and disclose what he had earned. After going through the merits of their cases, we do not find it possible to take any different view about the cases of the workmen at serial Nos. 8 and 101. The dismissal of the workmen at serial No. 109, however, shall have to be held as wrongful. But he having not cared to show what income he had earned, or that he did not get any job no order as to his claim for back wages can be passed. Then our attention was drawn by Mr. Sawant to the workmen referred to at serial Nos. 36, 46, 84, 86, 88, 100 and 107 in the list Exhibit I. It appears that after the Award and during the pendency of this Special Civil Application, these seven workmen settled their claim with the Employer and received payments in full settlement thereof. Receipts executed by these workmen in favour of the Employer have been shown to us in the courts of the hearing of this case. Mr. Damania did not dispute the fact that these workmen had received the amounts as stated in the receipts. Mr. Receipts executed by these workmen in favour of the Employer have been shown to us in the courts of the hearing of this case. Mr. Damania did not dispute the fact that these workmen had received the amounts as stated in the receipts. Mr. Damania however, strongly urged that merely because some of the workmen were tempted to accept the amount due to the stresses and strains through which they were passing, that by itself should not prevent this Court from granting relief to these workmen along with several other workmen. The contention of Mr. Damania cannot be said to be without some substance. However, it will not be advisable in the facts and circumstances of this cases to re-open the case of the workmen who had voluntarily chosen to settle their claims with the Employer for whatever reasons. It appears that workmen at serial Nos. 85 and 90 of Exhibit I died during the pendency of the reference before the Labour Court. Their claims were rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that their heirs were not brought on the record though they were found to have died during the pendency of the reference. In respect of workmen at serial No. 90, the Labour Court found that he was not a workmen at all. We do not think it possible to interfere with the said finding of fact. With regard to here of the employee at serial Nos. 85, Mr. Sawant made a statement that in the event of the heirs of the said workman approaching the Employer, the Employer will settle his claim. With this statement from the learned Counsel appearing for the Employer, we do not purpose to deal with his case any more. Apart from the damages in lieu of backwages the workmen also are entitled to claim compensation in lieu of re-instatement. As indicated earlier, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it shall have to be held that the workmen were actually retrenched when the Award was delivered on 26th February, 1974, had they been retrenched in the ordinary manner, they would have been entitled to compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act at the rate of 15 days salary for each year of service undergone. We see no reason why any unfavourable different basis for the compensation should be found out for compensation in lieu of re-instatement. Mr. We see no reason why any unfavourable different basis for the compensation should be found out for compensation in lieu of re-instatement. Mr. Damania, however, contends that such compensation could have been payable to them, even if the retrenchment would have been total. The workmen are entitled to something more, once it is found that the dismissal was wrongful. In our opinion the ends of Justice will be met if the Employer is directed to pay all these workmen compensation in lieu of reinstatement at the rate of 20 days salary for each year of service undergone, in addition to the back wages. We would like to make it clear that the period during which the workmen are found to have been wrongly dismissed, viz., upto 26th February, 1974, would be considered to be the period of their service for the purposes of this compensation. The result, therefore, is that we confirm the order of the Labour Court as far as the rejection of the claims of workmen at serial Nos. 8 and 101 of reference are concerned as also the workmen at serial No. 90 of Exhibit I. We also do not consider, it necessary to pass any orders with regard to workmen at serial Nos. 36, 46, 84, 88, 100 and 107 of Exhibit I, in view of the fact that they have settled their claims with the Employer during the pendency of this Special Civil Application and received payments in full settlement of their respective claims. workmen at serial Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 63, and 75 would get back wages at 25 percent of what they would have received had they remained in service, minus the amounts earned by them during this period from 30th October, 1964 to 26th February, 1974. Other workmen would get back wages at the rate or 50 percent of what they would have got had they been in service, minus the amounts earned by them elsewhere during this period. All these workmen will also, in addition get compensation in lieu of re-instatement at the rate of 20 days salary for each year of service undergone by them. The Employer would pay to the heirs of the workmen at serial No. 85 in terms of the above order, when the heirs approach them. All these workmen will also, in addition get compensation in lieu of re-instatement at the rate of 20 days salary for each year of service undergone by them. The Employer would pay to the heirs of the workmen at serial No. 85 in terms of the above order, when the heirs approach them. Though we have found that workmen at serial No. 109 is not entitled to any back wages, we do not see any reason why he should be deprived of the compensation in lieu of re-instatement. We order accordingly. Cases of workmen at serial Nos. 8 and 101 do not call for consideration, as both of them were found not to have been wrongfully dismissed by the Labour Court itself. Mr. Damania has also indicated that this change in the basis of the compensation does not adversely effect of the workmen. Four months time is granted to the Employer to implement the above directions. Rule made absolute as above. The petitioner will get the costs from respondent No. 1. -----