JUDGMENT : A.K. GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned single Judge setting aside the order of reinstatement of the appellant and substituting the same by direction to pay compensation amounting Rs. 25,000/-. The workman was initially appointed for 89 days as Octroi Clerk and worked from April 19, 1986 for about 14 months. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). The matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The labour Court vide award dated March 2, 1990 upheld the plea of the workman and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The Municipality- management preferred a writ petition in this Court which remained pending for about 20 years. However, the workman continued to get last pay drawn u/s 17-B of the Act. Learned single Judge, having regard to the fact that workman had worked only for about 14 months, held that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement with back wages but to compensation Rs. 25,000/- in addition to wages drawn u/s 17-B of the Act during the pendency of the proceedings. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once violation of Section 25-F was established, the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages as he remained unemployed during the pendency of the proceedings. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy vs. Radhey Shyam, (2008) 13 SCC 248 wherein compensation Rs. 3 lacs was awarded. 4. We are unable to accept the submission. Admittedly, the workman was a temporary employee on a public post and was not recruited in accordance with the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution. It is now well settled that even on violation of Section 25-F of the Act reinstatement on a public post with back wages is not mandatory requirement. The effect of violation of Section 25-F of the Act has to be seen on case to case basis having regard to the nature of appointment and period for which workman had worked. It is now well settled that even on violation of Section 25-F of the Act reinstatement on a public post with back wages is not mandatory requirement. The effect of violation of Section 25-F of the Act has to be seen on case to case basis having regard to the nature of appointment and period for which workman had worked. Reference may be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575, Madhya Pradesh Administration vs. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748 , Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and Another, (2008) 1 SCC 575 . As regards the judgment in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy vs. Radhey Sham (supra), the same is distinguishable. In an earlier judgment of this Court dated December 3, 2009 in L.P.A. No. 566/2009 Balwinder Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Others the said judgment was held to be distinguishable as follows: The order passed in the said case related to a case where award for reinstatement had already attained finality. It was held that though the matter was required to be remanded to the Labour Court, having regard to peculiar facts that 27 years had already passed and liability Rs. 8 lacs had already been accrued under the award, which had become final, it will be proper to award a sum Rs. 3 lacs as compensation. The matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the management failed to carry out the award, against which writ petition had already been dismissed. The workman had moved an application u/s 33-C(2) of the Act, which was allowed and the said order was challenged by the management. The judgment relied upon is, thus, distinguishable. 5. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.