JUDGMENT : S.H. Kapadia, J. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge award of the Labour Court dated February 3, 1989 by which Reference (IDA) No. 659 of 1987 was rejected on the ground that in the statement of claim the workman has not asked for reinstatement and, therefore, the workman was not entitled to reinstatement. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows:- (a) By Reference No. 659 of 1987 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) to the Labour Court, the petitioner's demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back- wages with effect from December 15, 1986 came to be referred. Pursuant to the said reference a statement of claim was filed by the workman. As per the said statement of claim, it is alleged that the services of the workman was terminated orally by the employer with effect from December 15, 1986, that the parties were called for preliminary discussion from time to lime before the Conciliation Officer; that the demand of the workman was admitted in conciliation on May 8, 1987; the failure report was filed; the workman accordingly sought the above Reference on the ground that he was working as a bangle cutter for five years and he was drawing salary of Rs. 40/- per day, when his services were terminated orally with effect from December 15, 1986. (b) By an affidavit dated November 18, 1988 filed before the Second Labour Court the workman repeated the above facts. By the said affidavit the workman expressly prayed that the employer be directed to reinstate him in service with full backwages and continued in service or the employer may be directed to pay Rs. 23,080/- compensation for wrongful termination of his service. (c) By the statement of claim, the workman has restricted his prayer to recovery of Rs. 28,080/- as indicated hereinabove. (d) By the impugned order the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Reference was for reinstatement with continuity of service with backwages whereas in the statement of claim the workman has calculated his wages and has claimed only compensation. Therefore, the Reference was not maintainable because the workman has not sought reinstatement. 3. In the present case, the workman is a very poor person. He has worked for five years. He was a bangle cutter. Therefore, the Reference was not maintainable because the workman has not sought reinstatement. 3. In the present case, the workman is a very poor person. He has worked for five years. He was a bangle cutter. He has raised the demand for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service on the ground that his services were wrongfully terminated orally by the employer. Thereafter in the statement of claim along with the various affidavits, the workman has submitted that in the alternative he should be paid compensation as set out hereinabove. In the circumstances, the Labour Court should not have rejected the Reference. The totality of facts indicate that the workman has asked for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service as also in the alternative for compensation. The Labour Court has taken a very technical view of the matter. 4. In the circumstances, the ends of justice requires that the impugned Award dated February 3, 1989 be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court with a direction to decide the said Reference No. 659 of 1987 on the basis that the workman has sought reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service and in the alternative compensation of Rs. 23,080/-. The Labour Court is directed to decide and the said Reference No. 659 of 1987 expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today. In the light of the above directions, writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.