Short Note : 1. The petitioner, Khadi Sangh, seeks to challenge the award rendered by the Labour Court, Gwalior in a reference made to it under the Industrial Disputes Act, whereby it was directed to reinstate the respondent No. 1 with back wages. 2. The respondent No. 1 raised a dispute and his case was referred under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court after an enquiry into the matter, found that the termination of the service of the respondent No. 1 was not a simple discharge. The order terminating his services casts a stigma on him and the services were terminated because the management was of the opinion that he had misconducted himself. The termination of services of the respondent No. 1 was, therefore, by way of punishment. There had been no enquiry into the allegations of mis-conduct. The Labour Court stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct yet, they had not availed of the opportunity. The management had merely tendered evidence of one Rajkumar Sharma, which was of very little help in establishing the charges of mis-conduct against the respondent No. 1, Since the termination was by way of punishment, the Labour Court directed that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to be reinstated with bach wages. Held : In this case, it is clear that the order cannot be held to be an order of discharge simpliciter, It is a long order showing why the services of the petitioner had been terminated. The mis-conducts for which his services were terminated were clearly alluded to in the order. It is then shown that the termination is because he had proved unworthy to be continued in service because of the mis-conducts committed by the respondent. From the tenure of the order, it would appear that the respondent No. 1’s services were being terminated because of the alleged mis-conduct. We, therefore, wholly agree with the findings of the Labour Court. 3. The other circumstance that would be relevant in the case would be that the petitioner Sangh is not a very big establishment and it may not be possible for such an organisation to pay any employee without work for a period of four years. In M/s. Ruby General Insurance Co. 3. The other circumstance that would be relevant in the case would be that the petitioner Sangh is not a very big establishment and it may not be possible for such an organisation to pay any employee without work for a period of four years. In M/s. Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Chopra (1969) (3) Supreme Court cases (653), their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the length of service of the employee a consideration germane for determining whether compensation was proper, instead of reinstatement, even though the dismissal was held to be illegal. In Management Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workman, Miss Shanti Patnaik (1966) 2 SCR 434 , the employee was held to be wrongfully dismissed. She was appointed on probation for six months. Her work was found to be unsatisfactory and, was, therefore, dismissed in terms of the contract of service. The Tribunal did not accept of Company's case and held that its order of discharge amounted to dismissal which was wrongful as no enquiry giving her an opportunity of being heard was held. But considering that her employment was on the post of confidence, the Tribunal did not order reinstatement and instead, directed the Company to pay compensation to one year's salary on the ground that there were no special circumstances to warrant the award of two year's salary as compensation. We think that in this case, the order of reinstatement does not appear to be proper and instead, compensation should be awarded to the respondent No. 1 considering that the respondent No. 1 has been out of employment, the compensation is fixed at Rs. 4,000 which would approximate to half back wages up-till now. 1969 (3) SCC 653 and (1966), 2 SCR 434 followed. Petition partly allowed.