Order The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (A) The relief portion of the award passed in Ref. Case nos. 1 of 93 (Annexure-3) be modified to the extent of reinstatement with back wages. (B) The last portion of the order/Award dated 3rd January, 2003 whereby and whereunder the Management is directed to pay only one month's wages and compensation to the workman in terms of Sec. 25F even after holding that the concerned workman has not been given one month notice one month wages in terms of the Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act to be modified or extended for reinstatement with back wages. 2. The facts in brief as stated by the petitioner is set out as under:- The petitioner joined her service in Tata D.A.V. School, Jamadova, Dhanbad in the month of April, 1998 as an ‘Aaya'. Her duty hours were from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and she performed her duty regularly. However, no appointment letter was issued to her but on 21.2.1990 she was issued a letter indicating that she was a part-time "Aaya". On 30.6.1991 service of the petitioner was transferred to D.A.V. Public School, Kedla, Hazaribagh on enhancing salary to Rs. 5000/- per month where she worked uptill 27.7.1991 and thereafter she was disallowed and the Director asked her to report at Tata D.A.V. School, Jamadova, Dhanbad but the Principal did not allow her to join her duty and verbally terminated her. 3. The petitioner, being constrained, raised an industrial dispute and upon failure of conciliation, the matter was referred for adjudication vide notification dated 16.12.1992 in the following terms:- "Whether the termination of service of Smt. Manorma Devi, Aaya, D.A.V. School, Jamadova, Dhanbad is justified? If not whether she should be reinstated on work orland she be given compensation." 4. Initially a writ petition was filed being C.WJ.C. No. 3669/1999 challenging the earlier award dated 16.12.1998 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 1/93 wherein the petitioner was held to be a permanent employee and the termination order was held to be illegal. Initially a writ petition was filed being C.WJ.C. No. 3669/1999 challenging the earlier award dated 16.12.1998 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 1/93 wherein the petitioner was held to be a permanent employee and the termination order was held to be illegal. In the writ petition filed by the employer, respondent herein, challenging the aforesaid award dated 16.12.1998, this Court set aside the award dated 16.12.1998 and remitted the matter for fresh decision confined to the issue as to whether the workman was given on€ month's notice or in lieu of notice one month's wages in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or not. 5. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad vide its impugned award dated 3.1 .2003 after considering the entire pleadings, facts etc. directed as under:- "Thus, keeping in view of the facts, attendant circumstances and the evidences on record I arrive at a finding that the workman concerned had not been given one month's notice or in lieu of notice, one month's wages in terms with Section 25F of the 1.0. Act. Accordingly, the workman concerned is entitled to one month's wages and compensation in terms with Section 25F of the 1.0. Act. The management is directed to pay one month's wages and compensation to the workman concerned in terms with Section 25F of 1.0. Act within three months from the date of pronouncement of the award." 6. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is as to whether the relief portion of award was legal, proper and valid and as to whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement for non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been submitted that the impugned award was violative of Section 25F of the Industrial. Disputes Act. 7. I have considered the pleadings and rival submission of the parties. The admitted fact remains that the workman was never appointed on regular basis and was never a permanent employee. Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act gives protection to the workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer. 8. The admitted fact remains that the workman was never appointed on regular basis and was never a permanent employee. Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act gives protection to the workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a catena of judgment on the issue and finally held that in a case where the appellant authority failed to comply with the statutory requirement contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, reinstatement with back wages cannot be automatic instead it was of the opinion that the same, can be granted on consideration of all attending circumstances keeping in view that the respondent was appointed on a temporary basis and the fact that he would not have remained unemployed for such a long time and finally it referred to and relied upon Man Singh's case reported in (2006)7 SCC page 752 and held at para 8 as under:- "8 Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that instead and in place of the direction for reinstatement of the respondent together with back wages from 1986, interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to him. Similar orders, we may place on record, have been passed by this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Ghyan Chand, State of M.P. vs. Arjunlal Rajak, Nagar Mohapalika (now Municipal Corpn.) vs. State of U.P. and Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. vs. Mamni" and finally in (2007)9 SCC page 748 [:2007( ) JLJR (SC)51] (Madhya Pradesh Administration vs. Tribhuban) at para 13 held as under:- "We, therefore, are of the opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and particularly in view of the fact that the High Court had directed reinstatement with full back wages, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant herein be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent." 9. Considering the aforesaid interpretation and the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decision, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 75,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent." 9. Considering the aforesaid interpretation and the law as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decision, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation instead of directing reinstatement with full back wages in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 10. This writ petition is partly allowed and the award is modified accordingly.