Honble SHETHNA, J.–A short question of law involved in this petition is, ``whenever the Labour Court set aside the termination order, it is bound to order reinstatement with back wages? (2). It all depends upon the facts of each case. If the services of permanent employee is found to be wrongly terminated then certainly order of reinstatement with back wages has to follow. But, there are cases and cases in which such an order of reinstatement with back wages would not be proper. (3). In the instant case, the petitioner workman was admittedly employed purely on daily wage basis on the post of Class IV in the Govt. dispensary in April, 1988 on a fixed salary of Rs. 600/-per month. It is also admitted fact that he has never worked continuously on the post in question and he had worked with several breaks in service. However, from the date of his first employment in April, 1988 till his termination i.e. in January, 1990 he managed to complete 240 days, therefore, the Labour Court was of the opinion that his termination was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, his termination was declared illegal. But, considering the fact that there was a delay on the part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court and other circumstances of the case namely that the petitioner was employed purely on daily wages basis on a fixed salary of Rs. 600/-per month and that his employment was not through the employment exchange, therefore, the Labour Court instead of ordering reinstatement with full back wages thought it fit to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/-in lieu of reinstatement with back wages then certainly this Court will not interfere with such order in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (4). Mr. G.K. Vyas for the petitioner workman has relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in case of Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Limited (1), and submitted that the delay should not come in the way of workman for reinstatement with full back wages. (5). In my considered opinion, the facts of the aforesaid case have no application whatsoever to the present case. (5). In my considered opinion, the facts of the aforesaid case have no application whatsoever to the present case. In case of Ajaib Singh (supra) no plea regarding delay was taken in the proceedings before the Labour Court inspite of that High Court set aside the award on the ground of delay and laches and substituted its opinion in place of opinion of the Labour Court without pleadings, therefore, the Honble Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the award passed by the Labour Court in its supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (6). I must also state that several petitions of this nature have been dismissed by this Court by keeping in mind the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union vs. Delhi Administration (2). (7). It must be stated that this Court has come across several cases of this nature, where initially employment was obtained on various illegal considerations. Knowing the judicial trend of giving benefit of regularisation while setting aside the termination on the ground that the workman had completed 240 days, number of persons successfully managed to get back door entry though they were not qualified and thereby deprived other eligible persons. (8). Thus, on peculiar facts of this case, if the Labour Court while setting aside termination order awarded only compensation instead of reinstatement with back wages, then this Court would not interfere with such orders in its supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (9). In view of the above discussion, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in my supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.