JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The State has challenged the order passed by Labour Court Dharamshala. The question considered by the Labour Court was the alleged illegal retrenchment of the workmen attached to the PWD Division, Dharampur. The workmen had a case that the retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 particularly Sections 25-G & 25-H. 2. On a detailed appreciation of the facts and the evidence available on record the Labour Court decided the reference and passed an award directing the reinstatement of the workmen with continuity in service and payment of 50% back-wages. It is seen that the grievance of the State is only with regard to the award of back-wages. 3. Heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the workmen point out that it is a case of a sheer discrimination and illegal retrenchment since the only purpose of retrenchment was to retain the juniors to them who are the persons of their choice. There is also a contention that after retrenching the workmen in all these cases, there was large scale engagement of daily-waged workmen for the purpose of ongoing development works. 5. On going through the record and having heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, we find that it is not a situation as if the Division did not have any ongoing Projects, though there is a vehement contention that they did not require large number of workmen. 6. Be that as it may. Having regard to the various contentions made on both sides, we find that the award of 50% back-wages apart from the continuity in service and without also taking note of the notice pay already granted to workmen, will not be justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the workmen engaged in these cases were daily-waged casual labourers. However, the fact remains that the retrenchment was improperly executed if not illegally made. But that does not mean that the award of the back wages is automatic and to the extent of 50%. 7. However, the fact remains that the retrenchment was improperly executed if not illegally made. But that does not mean that the award of the back wages is automatic and to the extent of 50%. 7. Having regard to the entire evidence available on record and having regard to the various contentions made by both the sides and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it will only be just, fit, fair, proper and reasonable to have a liquidated amount fixed towards costs and compensation which will take care of also the plea regarding the back wages. It is fairly suggested by both the sides that in the case of those workmen who pursued their grievances under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court and where there is an award for payment of 50% back-wages, an amount of Rs.50,000/- in that regard would be reasonable. 8. Therefore, all these cases are disposed of making it clear that towards the full and final settlement of the claim of back-wages, each of the workmen in these cases would be paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the notice they have already received. We also make it clear that this direction would also apply to those workmen in whose favour there are awards as above and which have not been challenged before this Court so that future litigation in that regard could be avoided. The amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 9. The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.