JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks setting-aside the impugned Award dated 23.2.2001 (Annx. B) passed by the Labour Court, by which the Labour Court directed the petitioner Municipal Board to reinstate the respondent-workman with 50% of the back wages. 2. On reference having been made, respondent-workman filed a claim petition before the Labour Court alleging therein that he was appointed as Junior Engineer on daily wages basis by the petitioner-Department and worked as such from 15.6.65 to 31.12.96. His services were terminated despite the fact that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year and the termination of his services was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the I.D. Act"). The Labour Court, after appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year and his services were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and consequently passed the impugned Award directing petitioner-Department to reinstate the workman in service with 50% of the back wages. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The petitioner-Department has come with the case that the respondent- workman was appointed on daily wages basis on contract basis and the Labour Court has not considered this important aspect of the matter. The further case of the petitioner-Department is that respondent No. 3 Shri Shiv Narain Pal has been appointed on the post of Junior Engineer on regular basis and as such the reinstatement of the respondent-workman on the post is not possible. 5. So far as the contention of the petitioner-Department regarding appointment of the petitioner on contract basis is concerned, the Labour Court did not believe the evidence adduced by the petitioner-Department and there is a finding of fact on this point. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. act. So far as violation of Section 25-G of I.D. Act is concerned, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman could not prove that there is a violation of provisions of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act as he could not establish that any person junior to him has been appointed on the post after his termination. So far as violation of Section 25-G of I.D. Act is concerned, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman could not prove that there is a violation of provisions of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act as he could not establish that any person junior to him has been appointed on the post after his termination. Nevertheless, one thing is clear that the petitioner was appointed on the post in question on daily wages basis and he has no right to his reinstatement when the post has been manned by respondent No. 3, who is a duly recruited person. 6. In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & ors., 1990(4) SLR 154 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is now the norm. 7. In Rattan Singh v. Union of India & ors., (1997)11 SCC 396 , where termination of services of the workman was made without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court instead ordered payment of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. In this regard the Supreme Court observed as follows : "We find merit in the said submission of Shri Ashri. From the dates mentioned in the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 22.1.1985, it appears that the appellant had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year. Since he was a workman, he was entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act and the said protection could not be denied to him on the ground that he was a daily-rated worker. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were complied with while terminating the services of the appellant. In these circumstances, the termination of services of the appellant cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. The services of the appellant were terminated in the year 1976. Nearly 20 years have elapsed since then. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement of the appellant. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that a consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the appellant in lieu of compensation for back wages as well as reinstatement. Nearly 20 years have elapsed since then. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to direct reinstatement of the appellant. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that a consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the appellant in lieu of compensation for back wages as well as reinstatement. This amount is being paid in full and final settlement of all the claims of the appellant. The said amount shall be paid within two months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs." 8. The Division Bench of this Court, in State of Rajasthan v. Rashid Mohammed, DBCSA No. 406 of 2000 and Ram Niwas v. The Mining Engineer & ors., DBCSA No. 270 of 2003 has held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement is the adequate relief in such cases. 9. In view of the settled legal proposition and the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages granted by the Labour Court is not sustainable and the ends of justice would be met if compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is granted. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned Award dated 23.2.2001 (Annex. B) is modified to this extent that the respondent- workman is not entitled for reinstatement and back wages but he is held entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. thirty thousand only). The stay petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition party allowed. *******