Judgment :- 1. Petitioner, formerly an employee under second respondent seeks to quash Ext. P1 Award. He complained of denial of employment. First respondent (Labour Court) found that, "there was denial of employment from 16-11-81", and that the order of retrenchment was illegal. But, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner, relying on the decisions reported in Mohan Lal v. The Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd (AIR 1981 SC 1253), Hari Mohan Rastogi v. Labour Court and another (AIR 1984 SC 502), and Sant Raj and another v. O.P. Singla and another (AIR 1985 SC 617) submitted that, petitioner was entitled to reinstatement, as retrenchment was illegal. 3. Retrenchment was illegal and was not in compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notwithstanding that, counsel for respondents submits that discretion is available to the Labour Court in moulding relief. Though reinstatement is the normal rule it is not the invariable rule. It was further submitted that, in exercising the jurisdiction under Art.226, this court need examine only whether the Labour Court acted within its jurisdiction or committed any error apparent on the face of the award in the exercise of discretion. According to learned counsel, there are special facts and circumstances justifying departure from the normal rule of reinstatement. Such circumstances are that, petitioner was only casual employee, that there was no appointment order, and that retrenchment was occasioned by closure of the group office. 4. In Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. A K. Roy A others (AIR 1970 SC 1401). the Supreme Court observed that, reinstatement was the normal rule, but that the Tribunal had a discretion in the matter, depending on the facts of the case. Again, in Surendra Kumar Verma, etc. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court. New Delhi and another (AIR 1981 SC 422), the Supreme Court observed: "removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement ... There may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable to direct reinstatement with full backwages". (emphasis supplied) In Nant Raj and another v. O.P. Singla and another (AIR. 1985 SC. There may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable to direct reinstatement with full backwages". (emphasis supplied) In Nant Raj and another v. O.P. Singla and another (AIR. 1985 SC. 617), on which reliance was placed by both sides, it was observed: "the labour court has, however, the discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement, if the circumstances of a particular case are unusual or exceptional, so as to make reinstatement inexpedient or improper". The Supreme Court thus took the view that, reinstatement was not an invariable rule, though it was the normal rule. In this background, the propriety of the award has to be considered. Though the Labour Court has not indicated the reasons for awarding compensation instead of ordering reinstatement, in the operative portion of the award, under point No. 2, it was noticed that the group office where petitioner was working as a casual employee "had functioned only till November, 1981", that the appointment itself was not regular, and that the books did not contain the name of the workman. The Labour Court also found that the action was not vindictive. In a case, where the employee, who had worked only for nineteen months on a daily wage of Rs. 8/-, the compensation payable on retrenchment would have been only Rs. 200/-. It was on a consideration of all these aspects that the Labour Court moulded the relief. I am not inclined to think that the exercise of discretion available to the Labour Court, made in an unreasonable or perverse manner. The view taken is not vitiated by manifest errors apparent on the face of the record. In these circumstances, petition fails, and is dismissed. No order as to costs.