JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this special appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 27.08.2008 passed in CWP No. 1952/2008 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and has maintained the award made by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Reference Case No. 102/1999. By the award impugned, the Labour Court, though found termination of services of the petitioner-appellant from 31.10.1993 unjustified and illegal but, instead of reinstatement, granted him the relief of lump-sum compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. 2. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that on raising of the industrial dispute by the petitioner-appellant, the following reference came to be made by the State Government on 03.12.1998 to the Labour Court, Jodhpur:- " D;k Jfed Jh x.ks'kyky iq= Jh iwukjke [kkjoky jsYos QkVd ds ikl f[kesy ok;k jkuh ftyk ikyh dks fu;kstd d`f"k vf/kdkjh ty xzg.k fodkl ,oa Hkwlaj{k.k ckyh ftyk ikyh }kjk fnaukd 31-10-1993 ls lsoki`Fkd djuk mfpr ,ao oS/k gS \ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ " 3. The petitioner-appellant claimed that he was appointed from 01.06.1992 on daily-wages basis and though he had completed 240 days in service, his services were terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation and without notice. The non-applicants alleged that the petitioner appellant worked on the particular project only for 111 days between 01.06.1992 to 30.11.1992. It was also submitted that later on, the petitioner-appellant was selected as Chairperson of the Users Committee by the Gram Sabha; and his involvement in a criminal case was also indicated. 4. It is borne out from the material placed on record that earlier, on 10.09.2001, the Labour Court proceeded to answer the reference in favour of the petitioner-appellant and, while finding the questioned termination improper and illegal, directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of reference. The said award dated 10.09.2001 was made ex parte and the matter reached this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4789/2003 and 1986/2003. In the writ petition filed by the employer (CWP No. 4789/2003), the learned Single Judge allowed the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") by the order dated 12.05.2005. 4789/2003 and 1986/2003. In the writ petition filed by the employer (CWP No. 4789/2003), the learned Single Judge allowed the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") by the order dated 12.05.2005. Thereafter, contempt petition bearing number 204/2005 was also filed complaining of non-compliance of the order passed on 12.05.2005 wherein it was given out that the directions had been issued for payment of Rs. 1,01,929/- to the present appellant. The said writ petitions, CWP No. 4789/2003, as filed by the employer questioning the award and so also the order refusing to set aside the award; and CWP No. 1986/2003, as filed by the petitioner-appellant seeking mandamus for implementation of award, were decided together by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.11.2006. While finding that the Labour Court was not justified in refusing to set aside the ex parte award, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the employer (CWP No. 4789/2003) and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for decision afresh after opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. As a necessary corollary, the writ petition filed by the appellant (CWP No. 1986/2003) was dismissed. 5. It has been pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 20.11.2006 that the Labour Court took up the matter over again; and, after considering the evidence adduced on record, found that the appellant came to be retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. However, on the question of relief, the Labour Court found that the appellant had been paid Rs. 1,01,929/- under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947; and further observed that no such daily wages labourers were being employed by the State Government and then, 14 years had already passed from the date of termination of services. Taking all these factors into account, the Labour Court found it justified to award the appellant compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 6. Assailing the award aforesaid, it was contended by the petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition leading to this appeal that earlier, the Labour Court had passed the award in his favour directing reinstatement with 50% back wages and there was no change of circumstances so as to deny him such relief. 6. Assailing the award aforesaid, it was contended by the petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition leading to this appeal that earlier, the Labour Court had passed the award in his favour directing reinstatement with 50% back wages and there was no change of circumstances so as to deny him such relief. However, the learned Single Judge found no case for interference while observing,- "I do not find any substance in the petition for writ. As a matter of fact, after passing the award dated 14.09.2001, in a petition for writ preferred by the employer, a direction was granted on 20.11.2006 to the labour court to consider and decide the industrial dispute afresh and the award dated 14.09.2001 was accordingly quashed. The labour court while examining the issue relating to grant of relief, considered the facts that the workman remained in employment for a small period, the Government has already abandoned the recruitment on daily rate basis and also that the termination was effected about 14 years back. The labour court is having ample power to determine the relief looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant matter, the compensation was awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement for specific reasons that does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India." 7. Seeking to assail the order aforesaid, the learned counsel strenuously argued that the appellant is entitled for the relief of reinstatement and there is no reason to deny him such relief after termination of services has been found to be invalid and illegal. The learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2010) 2 SCC 543 , Kishan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak (Haryana) , JT 2010 (2) SC 599 and State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar, 2007 (113) FLR 946 . The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the award earlier made by the Labour Court, the appellant had indeed been reinstated and he was never communicated any order of termination after such reinstatement and for this reason too, the award as now made by the Labour Court remains unjustified and calls for interference. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to the award earlier made by the Labour Court, the appellant had indeed been reinstated and he was never communicated any order of termination after such reinstatement and for this reason too, the award as now made by the Labour Court remains unjustified and calls for interference. 8. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and having scanned through the material placed on record, we are unable to find any reason to show interference in this intracourt appeal. 9. So far as the earlier award dated 10.09.2001 is concerned, suffice is to say that the same was ultimately set aside by the above referred order dated 20.11.2006 as passed in CWP No. 4789/2003; and hence, no rights can at all be claimed by the appellant under the said non-existent award. 10. So far the question of grant of relief after remand is concerned, the Labour Court has taken all the relevant factors into account including those of the appellant having received an amount of Rs. 1,01,929/- pursuant to order passed under Section 17-B; of passage of time where 14 years had passed by; and of the present set up in which daily- rated employees were not engaged. The Labour Court has, thereafter, consciously granted the relief of compensation instead of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge has also taken conscious note of all the relevant facts and reasons and found no case for interference. We have no hesitation in stating our concurrence with the order passed by the learned Single Judge affirming the award made by the Labour Court. 11. The submission that the Labour Court was obliged to grant the relief of reinstatement and could not have granted compensation in lieu thereof, in our opinion, remains untenable; and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not lend support to the submission because each one of them essentially proceeds on its own facts. 12. 11. The submission that the Labour Court was obliged to grant the relief of reinstatement and could not have granted compensation in lieu thereof, in our opinion, remains untenable; and the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not lend support to the submission because each one of them essentially proceeds on its own facts. 12. In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra), the Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages but the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Department and the only point for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court was as to whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award of Labour Court when the workman had established that he was in continuous service for a period of 240 days in a calendar year particularly when similarly placed workman had been reinstated and even regularised by the Government. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court said that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the factual finding recorded by the Labour Court and even observed that 'in view of the different treatment to other similarly placed workmen the Department ought not to have challenged the order of the Labour Court'. 13. In the case of Kishan Singh (supra), again, in the given fact situation the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court should not have interfered in the award of the Labour Court, which had granted the relief of reinstatement with 50% back wages, by substituting it with the relief of compensation. In the case of Anil Kumar (supra), the position was that the Labour Court had passed the award directing reinstatement with 40% back wages that was affirmed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding the award regarding reinstatement, set aside the directions for payment of back wages keeping in view the fact that there had been belated approach to the Labour Court. From none of the cases referred by the learned counsel could it be culled out that the Hon'ble Apex Court has disapproved granting of compensation in lieu of reinstatement depending on the facts of a given case. 14. From none of the cases referred by the learned counsel could it be culled out that the Hon'ble Apex Court has disapproved granting of compensation in lieu of reinstatement depending on the facts of a given case. 14. Recently, while referring to the relevant decisions on the point and rejecting the similar nature arguments, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SAW No. 423 of 2002, decided on 28.05.2010 has held that even when the normal rule in such cases is to award reinstatement yet the industrial adjudicator has the discretion to award compensation in lieu of relief of reinstatement. The Division Bench said,- "Therefore, keeping in view the object and purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act coupled with its interpretation made by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, we have no hesitation in holding that in the cases of wrongful discharge or dismissal, the normal rule is to award reinstatement yet the industrial adjudicator has the discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In other words, in appropriate cases, the courts are empowered to interfere in cases of discharge or dismissal of an employee but in lieu of a right to claim reinstatement, the Courts can award any other relief including the relief of awarding reasonable compensation to the employee concerned depending on the fact situation." 15. In the said case of Rajendra, the workman had worked for about a year or so and the Division Bench, in the interest of justice, proceeded to enhance the compensation amount from Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. In the present case, the appellant has been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- and this apart, he has admittedly been paid a sum of Rs. 1,01,929/- pursuant to the interim order passed in the earlier round of litigation by this Court. In the fact situation of the present case, the petitioner-appellant has rightly been held entitled to compensation and not reinstatement; and, in our opinion, the amount ultimately received by the appellant could only be said to be rather on the higher side. 16. 1,01,929/- pursuant to the interim order passed in the earlier round of litigation by this Court. In the fact situation of the present case, the petitioner-appellant has rightly been held entitled to compensation and not reinstatement; and, in our opinion, the amount ultimately received by the appellant could only be said to be rather on the higher side. 16. So far the feeble suggestion as made on behalf of the appellant that he was reinstated during the course of earlier round of litigation and was thereafter never communicated any order of termination is concerned, it is noticed from the observations made in the award impugned that not only the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,01,929/- was paid to the appellant pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court but further, the orders were indeed issued reinstating him; but then, he attended on the work merely for 6 days in the month of September 2005 and for 4 days in the month of October 2005 and remained regularly absent from 26.10.2005. As already noticed, an interlocutory order passed in the earlier writ petition would not enure to the benefit of the appellant to the extent that he could seek reinstatement on its basis. This apart, he was extended a chance by the respondents of reinstatement also but failed to avail of the same. In the given fact situation, while passing the award on 21.11.2007, the learned Labour Court cannot be said to have committed any error in granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, there is no force in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******