Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, setting aside the award of the Labour Court against reinstatement and backwages and substituting the same by a direction to give compensation of Rs. 15,000/- . It was further observed that the appellant would be at liberty to make representation which may be disposed of by the management sympathetically. 2. The workman was employed oh daily wage basis for about 1 year and 5 months from 1.12.1991 to 30.4.1993, as Peon - cum - Chowkidar in the forest department in the State of Haryana. When his services were not continued, he raised an industrial dispute, alleging violation of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"), which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court upheld the plea of the workman and directed reinstatement with back-wages. The workman was accordingly reinstated and allowed to work for four years during pendency of the writ petition. 3. The State - Management challenged the award of the Labour Court in view of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority and another v. Ashok Kumar and another 2008(4) SCC 261, Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula 2008(1) S.C.T. 310 : 2008(1) R.A.J. 295 : 2008(1) SCC 575, M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan 2007(2) S.C.T. 738 : (2007) 9 SCC 748, Uttranchal Forest Department Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi 2007(2) S.C.T. 562: (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 813, State of M.P. and others v. Lalit Kumar Verma 2007(1) S.C.T. 620 : (2007) 1 SCC 575, to the effect that in case of termination of services of daily wager, as per contract, there could be no question of reinstatement or backwages particularly when the workman was not appointed according to the statutory provisions or mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution. If it is to be held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act, there may be case of grant of compensation, depending upon individual fact situation. Compensation under Section 25-F of the Act is equal to 15 days wages for each completed year of service. However, the Courts have given varying amount of compensation. If it is to be held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act, there may be case of grant of compensation, depending upon individual fact situation. Compensation under Section 25-F of the Act is equal to 15 days wages for each completed year of service. However, the Courts have given varying amount of compensation. Learned Single Judge after referring to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Telecom District Manager and others v. Keshab Deb 2008(4) S.C.T. 32 : 2008(5) R.A.J. 588 : 2008(8) SCC 402 and Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana through Executive Engineer v. Ishwar Singh and others 2008(3) SCT 788, directed payment of Rs, 15,000/- as compensation and also directed that no recovery be effected for the wages paid during pendency of the writ petition. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies onjudgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. 2009(3) S. C. T. 790:2009(5) R.A.J. 153 : 2009 LLR 966 where compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded and M.P. Administration v. Tribhuwan (supra) where compensation of Rs. 75,000/- was awarded. He has also referred to judgment of this Court in Ishwar Singh (supra) wherein it was observed that for one completed year of service, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- should be paid. 6. The award of compensation in the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court relied upon on behalf of the appellant is not by laying down any principle of law about the quantum of compensation but in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Judgment of this Court Ishwar Singh (supra) indicates broad basis without any rigid formula. 7. We do not find any error in the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed.