JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against an Award of the First Labour Court, Pune dated April 26, 1985 made in Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1980 u/s 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The Petitioner had an establishment in which the activity of manufacturing and sale of plastic bags was carried out. The First Respondent was employed in the manufacturing activity from July 1, 1976. The First Respondent's service was terminated on June 5, 1979 on the ground that the Petitioner had lost confidence in her, though in the termination order no reason was given for the termination of service. The First Respondent raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service, which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Pune, vide Reference (IDA) No. 25 of 1980. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Labour Court by the impugned Award held that the service of the First Respondent was illegally terminated and that she was entitled to be reinstated in service with full back-wages. It is this Award which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. On the first issue as to the termination of service being illegal, I find no merit in the petition. Though the Petitioner had made out a case of negligence on the part of the First Respondent, no material worth the name was produced before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was justified in holding that no reasons for the termination of the service were shown and that the termination of service was illegal. However, that does not dispose of the writ petition as the second question of relief of reinstatement being granted to the First Respondent has been strongly canvassed by Mr. Kothari. 4. Mr. Kothari pointed out that, by an amendment to the writ statement filed by the Petitioner on October 24, 1980, the Petitioner had contended that the establishment had stopped the manufacturing of plastic bags permanently from August 11, 1980 and, therefore, there could be no question of reinstating of the First Respondent who was admittedly employed in the manufacturing of plastic bags. The Petitioner adduced oral evidence of its Proprietor, Amarchand Ramchand Patwa. The documentary evidence consisted of copies of the notice dated July 10, 1980 informing the workmen that, with effect from August 11, 1980, their services would be terminated. The Petitioner adduced oral evidence of its Proprietor, Amarchand Ramchand Patwa. The documentary evidence consisted of copies of the notice dated July 10, 1980 informing the workmen that, with effect from August 11, 1980, their services would be terminated. It is at Exh. 35 of the Labour Court's record. Petitioner also produced an extract from the Muster Roll-cum-Wages Register for the period July 1, 1979 to June 30, 1980 (sic.) and the amended copy of the licence issued by the Municipal Corporation, Pune, showing that the nature of its business was changed from "manufacturing and sale of plastic bags" to "sale of plastic bags". In these circumstances, Mr. Kothari is justified in his contention that the Labour Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of the Petitioner Employer on the second issue. The evidence on record clearly shows that the manufacturing activity on which the First Respondent was employed had been given up from August 11, 1980. Thus there was no question of granting relief of reinstatement to the First Respondent, even if the termination of First Respondent's service was illegal. 5. In the circumstances, the only relief the First Respondent is entitled is monetary compensation for the period of wrongful deprivation of her employment from June 5, 1979 to August 11, 1980. 6. At the time of admission of writ petition a sum of Rs. 2,600/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred only) was directed to be deposited in this Court and the said amount has been deposited in this Court on December 16, 1985. The First Respondent was given liberty of withdrawing the said amount on an undertaking to refund the same, if so ordered by this Court at the time of final decision. The First Respondent has not appeared before this Court, nor is Mr. Kothari able to state whether the said amount has been withdrawn by the first Respondent. I am satisfied that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the First Respondent is permitted to unconditionally withdraw the said amount of Rs. 2,600/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred only). 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The direction in the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated April 26, 1985 for reinstatement of the First Respondent workman is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, directed that the First Respondent shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,600/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred only). 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The direction in the impugned Award of the Labour Court dated April 26, 1985 for reinstatement of the First Respondent workman is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, directed that the First Respondent shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,600/- (Rupees two thousand six hundred only) as compensation for wrongful termination of her service. The Registry to pay the said amount deposited by the Petitioner to the First Respondent workman in case the said amount has not already been withdrawn by her. 8. Rule is accordingly made partly absolute as aforesaid without any order as to costs.