Judgment R.P. Vyas, J.-The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Judgment and award dated 011.2001 (Annexure 1) passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) be modified to the extent that the petitioner be granted the relief of reinstatement in place of amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/-as awarded by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Jaldhari (Class IV employee) with effect from 01.04.1994. After about two years of services, the services of the petitioner were retrenched in the month of Oct., 1996. 3. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the appropriate Government made a reference of the dispute to the respondent No.1 vide notification dated 19.08.1998 to the effect whether non-granting the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Banswara/Principal Government Upper Primary School, Falabara, was valid and justified and if not what relief the workmen were entitled to. 4. The petitioner submitted his statement of claim before the respondent No. 1 and the official respondents submitted reply thereto. 5. After recording evidence of both the parties and hearing the matter, the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 1) passed an award dated 011.2001 (Annexure 1) inter alia holding that the order of retrenchment of services of the petitioner passed by the respondents and non-granting the benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioner even after completion of 2 years of services were illegal and against the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. However in view of provisions of Rajasthan (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1999) instead of his reinstatement, the learned Labour Court directed that the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000./-be paid to the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned part of Judgment and award dated 011.2001 (Annexure 1) whereby the learned Labour Court did not direct reinstatement of the petitioner, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. 10,000./-be paid to the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned part of Judgment and award dated 011.2001 (Annexure 1) whereby the learned Labour Court did not direct reinstatement of the petitioner, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the reinstatement and benefit of regular pay scale on completion of two years of service has been denied to the petitioner only on the basis of provisions of Act of 1999. However provisions of Sections 9, 11 and 19 of the Act of 1999 have been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 (3) WLC 728, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the Labour Court had come to the conclusion that termination order of workman was illegal, in normal rule, reinstatement should have been ordered. The reinstatement can be denied only in special circumstances, which do not exist in the instant case. For this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, reported in 2001 (2) SCC 423 . However, the learned Labour Court has not ordered reinstatement because at that time, provisions of Act of 1999 were in force. However, since the provisions of Sections 9, 11 and 19 have been declared unconstitutional, therefore, now there is no bar in directing reinstatement of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that this Court in identical SBCWP NO. 4639/2003 -Mitha Lal vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal, decided on 011.2004 has directed reinstatement in place of compensation. Hence, the impugned Judgment and award dated 011.2001 (Annexure 1) be modified to the extent that the order of reinstatement should be passed in favour of the petitioner. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined and scanned the material available on record. 9. The Honble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that when the order of termination is found to be illegal, the general rule is to grant reinstatement and compensation should be awarded in exceptional circumstances. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined and scanned the material available on record. 9. The Honble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that when the order of termination is found to be illegal, the general rule is to grant reinstatement and compensation should be awarded in exceptional circumstances. In this connection, reference may be made to the following authorities of the Honble Supreme Court:- i) M/s Tulsi Das Paul vs. The 2nd Labour Court 1972 (4) SCC 205 ii) Vikramaditya Pandey vs. Industrial Tribunal (Supra). 10. Since, in the present case, the special exceptional circumstances which did not warrant reinstatement, do not exist today as the provisions of Sections 9, 11 and 19 of the Act of 1999 have been declared unconstitutional, therefore, the findings of the learned Labour Court (respondent No. 1) by which the petitioner was awarded compensation only in lieu of reinstatement cannot be sustained and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in place of compensation. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition is partly allowed in the manner that the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, but he will not get back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. The order of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-to the petitioner passed by the learned Labour Court, Udaipur (respondent No. 1) is quashed and set aside. If the amount of compensation has been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to return that compensation and on return of the compensation, the order of his reinstatement be passed. 12. The Judgment and award dated 011.2001 (Annexure 1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Udaipur stands modified to the above extent. No order as to costs.