JUDGMENT 1. 1.This appeal has been preferred by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation against the order of the learned Single Judge who has been pleased to set aside the award of the Labour Court by merely moulding the relief which had been granted to the respondent-workman. The respondent-workman had challenged his termination before the Labour Court on the plea that there has been violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and he succeeded in proving that the appellant-Corporation had illegally terminated his services by violating the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The learned Judge of the Labour Court however, refused to grant an order in his favour for his reinstatement but awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in lieu thereof. 2. The learned Judge of the Labour Court had granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement in view of the fact that the respondent-workman had discharged duties for a period of one year only prior to his termination. 3. The respondent-workman, feeling aggrieved with the award of the Labour Court, filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court only to the extent by which he had been refused the relief of reinstatement and had merely been granted compensation. The learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition by a reasoned judgment and order directing the respondent No. 1 to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and also granted him back wages to the extent of 50%. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-Corporation has preferred this appeal in support of which the counsel for the appellant-Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma submitted that the Labour Court was fully justified in granting compensation to the respondent-workman instead of reinstatement as he had discharged duties as a daily wager only for a period of one year in view of the decision of this Court delivered in the matter of Arjun Singh and etc. v. Labour Court, Jodhpur and others reported in 2004 LLR 1088 as also the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court delivered in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others reported in JT 2006(4) SC 420 , wherein it has been held that the relief can be granted to an employee after setting aside his termination considering the circumstances in which he had been terminated. It has been laid down that while granting relief to the workman the period between the date of appointment and the date of termination which means length of service is one of the relevant consideration which have to be taken into consideration by the Courts while granting relief to a workman while substituting appointment with compensation. In the instant matter, the respondent-workman no doubt had discharged duties only for a period of one year before his termination but his termination was held to be illegal and bad in the eye of law. But, it could not be overlooked that the respondent-workman, at the time of his termination, was aged only 32 years and had not been re-employed elsewhere and hence it was not a fit case where the relief of reinstatement could be substituted by just awarding compensation of Rs. 15,000/- although such relief might be justified in a case of such employee who is on the verge of retirement where reinstatement would not serve any purpose. 5. It is no doubt true that if on account of this litigation, the respondent had been gainfully employed elsewhere, the appellant- management could be permitted to urge that the respondent-workman should not have been granted the relief of reinstatement with back wages in view of the decision relied upon. In the instant matter, the Labour Court in fact has not even granted the back wages to the respondent-workman and, therefore, the anxiety of the industry to get his reinstatement set aside also cannot be appreciated once the finding of illegal termination could not be set aside. 6. The learned Single Judge, thus taking into consideration the background of the respondent-workman and his circumstances, was pleased to substitute the relief granted by the Labour Court by directing the appellant to grant him reinstatement with back wages. It is stated that thereafter the appellant-unit had filed an appeal before the Division Bench assailing the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while admitting the appeal, was pleased to order the appellant-unit to execute the order of the learned Single Judge by granting him reinstatement as a result of which the respondent-workman has already discharged duties for a period of more than three years by now and prior to that he had worked for one year. The Division Bench, while admitting the appeal, was pleased to order the appellant-unit to execute the order of the learned Single Judge by granting him reinstatement as a result of which the respondent-workman has already discharged duties for a period of more than three years by now and prior to that he had worked for one year. In view of this position as also the fact that his termination by the appellant was held to be illegal, we are not persuaded to accept the contention of the appellant-unit that the respondent-workman should be granted compensation in lieu of his reinstatement. In fact none of the judgments relied upon by the counsel makes it mandatory for the Court to grant compensation instead of reinstatement and it has been essentially left to the discretion of the Court to grant appropriate relief considering the background and circumstances of the employee. In the instant matter, when the respondent has already been reinstated in service by order of the Division Bench and considering the fact that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of his termination in the sense that he was not in a regular job, we fail to understand as to how the Labour Court thought it appropriate not to grant him the relief of reinstatement. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as his reinstatement is concerned. 7. We however, allowed the counsel for the appellant to address the Court as to whether the appellant should be granted back wages to the extent of 50% when he has failed to lead evidence that he was not gainfully employed. On this, the counsel for the respondent-workman was asked to address us on which it has been fairly conceded that the respondent is prepared to forgo the entire back wages including compensation which had been ordered to be paid by the Labour Court. 8. On this, the counsel for the respondent-workman was asked to address us on which it has been fairly conceded that the respondent is prepared to forgo the entire back wages including compensation which had been ordered to be paid by the Labour Court. 8. In view of this concession, we direct that the order of reinstatement passed by the learned Single Judge, which has already been given effect to, shall be maintained but he shall not be granted back wages in view of his concession as also on account of the fact that he was prima facie not entitled to the same in view of absence of evidence in regard to his gainful employment during the period in which he was out of service. 9. The dispute however, still remains between the parties in regard to the continuity of service which had been allowed by the learned Single Judge. In this context, the counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the continuity of service should not be maintained since he has not discharged duties for long number of years. Relying upon the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment as also the judgment referred to hereinbefore which has left it to the discretion of the concerned court to mould the relief considering the circumstances, we deem it just and appropriate to hold that the respondent-workman shall be granted benefit of continuity of service only for the period during which he actually has discharged duties in the appellant- organisation, meaning thereby that the period of one year which he had spent on duty prior to the date of his termination from which he was ordered to be reinstated i.e. from April, 2003 up to this date. The said period shall be counted towards continuity of service for the purpose of consequential benefit except back-wages. The relief granted by the learned Single Judge thus stands modified and substituted, in so far as grant of back wages and continuity of service is concerned, in the manner referred to hereinbefore. The appeal stands partly allowed with no order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed - Relief modified as above . *******