Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The award in challenge is a direction by the Labour Court for reinstatement with continuity of service and for back wages. There is no denial of the fact that when termination was purported to be effected on 23.9.1990, the Management had no more than to make an offer to pay the retrenchment compensation but did not actually tender the same. The Labour Court found that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service prior to the date of the purported termination on 23.9.1990 and found, referring several decisions of this Court and Honble Supreme Court that a mere offer to pay the compensation shall not amount to proper compliance of Section 25-F, therefore, find that the termination of services without complying with Section 25-F was not justified. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings the Management issued a notice on 11.11.1994 offering the work to workman and requesting him to join the duty. The copy of the letter was also reported to have been sent to the Labour Inspector. In evidence before the Labour Court tendered on 8.5.1997, the workman had stated that when he went to join duty he was not allowed. The workman admitted that he did not remember which Officer he met but denied specifically a suggestion that he did not report for duty at all. There had been also evidence on record by the workman that he had three children of age of 3 years, 6 years and 10 years and they were originally going to school but later withdrawn when his services were terminated and when he could not support his children. He had also stated that he was living on the tender mercies of his brother. 3. The Labour Court found the contention of the workman to be true and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The restriction to 50% was on the basis that the workman had not really worked and referring again to decision of this Honble Court in Roop Narain Shukla v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad and others (1997) 3 LLN 669 that the back wages should be sliced to the lesser amount for the time when the workman did not work. The Labour Court found in the peculiar facts and circumstances placed before it that the workman should be granted 50% of the back wages. 4. The Labour Court found in the peculiar facts and circumstances placed before it that the workman should be granted 50% of the back wages. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Management would state that pursuant to the award, the workman had been granted employment but again the services were terminated subsequently and that establishment is being run on a skeleton staff. Admittedly the workman was a daily rated wager and in the present situation when it faces financial sting even which learned counsel for the petitioner pleads for, it shall not be possible to reinstate him in service. There has been a consistent string of authorities emanating from the Honble Supreme Court that it shall not be, possible to reinstate a person for a violation of Section 25-F merely because it will be lawful to do so. The Court shall always look into the nature of engagement, the period of service that he had put in and the length to litigation itself. As regards what shall be the appropriate compensation there has been no definite guidelines and borders on ad hocism and some approximation on what would be just in every particular case. In situations where there is definite evidence that there is no post available to which a person could be reinstated or where apart from a violation of Section 25-F there was really no justification for the workman to demand reinstatement, compensation should be for lesser sums. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to a decision of this Honble Court which according to him clearly governs the case namely of Bhakra Beas Management Board through its Superintending Engineer and another v. Diwan Chand and another in CWP No. 2540 of 2007 where a person who had been working for a period, of about a year this Honble Court awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The Division Bench was dealing with the case where a specific contention was that the workman had been engaged for a particular purpose and that work had been completed and no relief would be possible, only by the fact that there had-been non-compliance of Section 25-F. It was not really a case where the Court found that reinstatement should be possible. The other decision which learned counsel refers is State of Punjab and another v. Kaku Ram, 2001(1) S.C.T. 744 : JT 2000 (10) SC 345 where the, Honble Supreme Court held in a case of a daily rated worker in Wild Life Sanctuary where the work was shown through evidence to be seasonal in character, the grant of full wages was not appropriate. That was a case where the workman had been granted reinstatement but only back wages had not been given.Where a reinstatement itself was possible, full wages could be even denied Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Ranghba Ambre, 2008(1) S.C.T. 632 : 2008(1) R.A.J. 553 : (2008) 2 SCC 717, the Honble Supreme Court held affirming the o quoted principle that if an illegal termination was set aside, it did not necessarily follow that the workman was entitled to permanent status, the Honble Court left with a direction for consideration of the workman for regularization. There is no such plea in this case and there is no lesson that could be drawn to this particular case from the above decision. In Usha Breco Mazdoor Singh v. Management of M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. And another, 2008(3) S.C.T. 52 : 2008(5) SLR 214 the Court held in a matter relating to the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The case had a bearing to the service being terminated for misconduct and the powers of the Court under Section 11-A as to when intervention with the findings of the enquiry officer would be possible. This decision again, in my view, is of no relevance. 5. General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, 2005(3) S.C.T. 559 : (2005) 5 SCC 591 was a case where the Court found that the method of recruitment, nature of appointment, qualifications of workman length of service and availability of alternative work would all be relevant factors for considering the compensation that could be given to a daily wager. In that case they were dealing with particularly a workman who had worked even less than a year with breaks in service. He had not. been technically qualified. The Court affirmed a direction for reinstatement but instead of full wages, 50% wages had been granted. 6. In that case they were dealing with particularly a workman who had worked even less than a year with breaks in service. He had not. been technically qualified. The Court affirmed a direction for reinstatement but instead of full wages, 50% wages had been granted. 6. I affirm the finding of the Labour Court that the termination was bad but for a justification for reinstatement back wages, if any modification is required, it is only on the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that presently the petitioner Corporation is working on a skeleton staff and regular work is not available. Having regard to the fact that the case has been pending for more than 20 years ever since the dispute arose, having regard to the evidence that had been let in before the Labour Court about the denial of employment, the particular difficulty that the workman had been going through, I am of the view that the appropriate compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be 1,50,000/- which shall be paid within eight weeks failing which it shall attract simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from this date. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the above extent. 7. The writ petition is ordered as above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.