JUDGMENT 1. - By a notification dated 29.9.1995 the appropriate Government referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bhilwara in the terms that "whether termination of workman Gopilal by the employer Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nimbahera w.e.f. 15.8.1993 is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?" Before the Labour Court, the workman came forward with the case that he was employed with Municipal Board, Bhilwara in the month of August, 1991 and on 14.8.1993 the Executive Officer of the Board terminated him from service by an oral order and that too without assigning any reason and as such the same is illegal. 2. The Labour Court by its award dated 22.2.1999 accepted the workman's claim by holding that he was in continuous service of the employer, therefore, his termination from service without adhering the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not legal, accordingly the same was quashed. A direction then was given to reinstate the workman in service, however, no back wages were allowed to him looking to the fact that he was involved in business during the period he remained out of employment. 3. The employer assailed validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 22.2.1999 by way of filing a petition for writ before this Court and that came to be accepted by judgment dated 20.4.2001. Learned Single Judge modified the relief part of the award and ordered that in lieu of reinstatement the workman shall be paid Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation. 4. By this appeal validity of the judgment dated 20.4.2001 is questioned by the workman on the counts that (1)in case of illegal retrenchment, reinstatement in service is a natural corollary, therefore, learned Single Judge erroneously interfered with the award impugned and in alternative (2)the compensation allowed is too meager and, therefore, the same deserves enhancement. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employer contested the matter with the argument that reinstatement is not a relief that is required to be given essentially in every case, where retrenchment is held bad. The Court may examine facts of each case independently and determine the relief accordingly. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employer contested the matter with the argument that reinstatement is not a relief that is required to be given essentially in every case, where retrenchment is held bad. The Court may examine facts of each case independently and determine the relief accordingly. It is also informed by counsel for the employer that the workman has yet not drawn the compensation allowed to him by learned Single Judge though the same was offered by the employer under a letter dated 27.7.2001. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. From perusal of the judgment impugned it appears that the learned Single Judge while modifying the award dated 22.2.1999 has taken into consideration short term of employment and involvement of workman with business. Learned Single Judge looking to peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considered it appropriate to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement. True it is, in normal course reinstatement in service is a natural and normal relief where retrenchment from service is found void ab-initio. However, a deviation from such normal course is permissible to settle equities between the parties. A Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may examine facts of each case independently, and can mold relief to suit the circumstances. In the present case learned Single Judge found that the workman was in employment of the employer only for a short period of about two years and subsequent thereto he was involved in business, therefore, allowed compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The conclusion arrived by learned Single Judge is founded on adequate appreciation of facts and objective conditions. No interference, therefore, is required with the order impugned to the extent that awards compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 8. The other argument advanced by counsel for the workman regarding the amount of compensation, as a matter of fact has not been seriously contested by counsel for the employer. It is the position admitted that the workman has yet not drawn the amount of compensation and as such looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it immensely fit to enhance the compensation from the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part in the manner that compensation awarded by learned Single Judge is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part in the manner that compensation awarded by learned Single Judge is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.No order to costs.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******