JUDGMENT On 24.08.2011 this Court issued rule and notice as to interim relief returnable today. On a request made by learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala appearing with Mr.Nikunj D. Balar for the petitioner the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent-State has no objection to the same. 2. The present petition is filed being aggrieved by award and order dated 19th March 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No.215 of 2003. 3. By order and award under challenge the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Junagadh was pleased to partly allow the reference and hold the action of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioner on 05.09.2000 as illegal. The learned Judge is pleased to award lump sum compensation in a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement. The learned Judge was pleased to order that this amount be paid within 30 days from the date of publication of the award. The learned Judge was also pleased to order payment of Rs.1000/- in favour of the applicant towards expenses of the proceedings. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in 1989 land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.44/3 of Village Sakhadawada Vadar, which was in the name of Nanu Jesa, grand father of the petitioner, was acquired for Ozat-2 Irrigation vide Land Acquisition Case No.33 of 1989. In the year 1995, the petitioner was appointed as Watchman of Ozat-2 site and thereafter, he was appointed as watchman in guest house on monthly salary of Rs.2125/-. On 05.09.2000 services of the petitioner came to be discontinued without any notice or following procedure prescribed under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner issued notice on 19.02.2002, to which the respondents did not reply. Thereafter, the petitioner was compelled to file a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Junagadh, who referred the dispute vide order dated 08.10.2003 to the Labour Court, Junagadh. The petitioner filed his statement of claim dated 11.12.2003, to which written statement was filed by the establishment on 29.12.2003. It is only on 19.03.2011 that the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Junagadh passed award and order under challenge. 5. The petitioner filed his statement of claim dated 11.12.2003, to which written statement was filed by the establishment on 29.12.2003. It is only on 19.03.2011 that the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Junagadh passed award and order under challenge. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has specifically held in para 15 that the action of the respondents is 6. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded a specific finding in para 17 that the action is in violation of sections 25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the action is illegal and that the petitioner-workman has proved the same by his deposition beyond any doubt. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge of the Labour Court relying upon recent decisions without mentioning any one of them decided to grant lump sum compensation to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement. unjust, improper and illegal inasmuch as the respondents did not comply with any provisions of law while terminating services of the petitioner-workman. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Senior Superintendent of Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 could not have been relied upon by the learned Judge for the reason that in that decision the Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that, “In the last few years it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wa ges in cases of such nature may be appropriate. .. ..” (emphasis supplied) The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Hon'ble the Apex Court has specifically qualified that judgement by saying that 'in cases of such nature' and second thing the Hon'ble the Apex Court stated that 'reinstatement is not to follow automatically'. .. ..” (emphasis supplied) The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Hon'ble the Apex Court has specifically qualified that judgement by saying that 'in cases of such nature' and second thing the Hon'ble the Apex Court stated that 'reinstatement is not to follow automatically'. Meaning thereby, the learned Judge of the Labour Court is supposed to apply his mind to the facts of the cases and if the facts fall within the category which were before the Hon'ble the Apex Court, the said decision is to be followed, but if the case on hand (in the hands of the Labour Court) is not of the same nature, then the learned Judge of the Labour Court is supposed to consider as to whether granting lump sum compensation will serve ends of justice or circumstances of the case require that the workman must be granted reinstatement. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble the Apex Court has further observed in the said decision that, “11. .. .. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. .. ..” (emphasis supplied) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the first and foremost factor which ought not to have been missed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court is that the petitioner was given employment as a special case on account of his land (his grandfather's land) was acquired for Ozat-2 Irrigation Scheme. This factor itself is sufficient to make the case on hand different than the case before the Hon'ble the Apex Court and therefore, in such circumstances to apply mechanically a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court and granting lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement was uncalled for and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the judgement and award of the learned Judge of the Labour Court is absolutely in accordance with law, more particularly when the judgement is delivered on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court. 9. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently submitted that the judgement and award of the learned Judge of the Labour Court is absolutely in accordance with law, more particularly when the judgement is delivered on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court. 9. Despite his strenuous efforts the learned AGP is not able to convince this Court that the judgement and award of the learned Judge of the Labour Court is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the very factor of acquisition of land for the purpose of Ozat-2 Irrigation Scheme and employment on account of that was a distinguishing feature for all purposes. Therefore, the learned Judge of the Labour Court ought not to have taken shelter under the decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court. In fact, saying that the said decision is applicable to the facts of the present case shows non application of mind on the part of the learned Judge of the Labour Court. The learned Judge of the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that this is one case wherein the land gets acquired in the year 1989. The petitioner is appointed as watchman in the year 1995. He is allowed to serve for five years and then one fine morning on 5th September 2000 his services are discontinued. The factum of acquisition of land for the purpose of irrigation scheme and employment given and considering that the said fact cannot be treated as a case of daily wager as were the facts before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. Besides, the workman was engaged as a daily wager about 25 years back. That being so, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgement and award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service on his original post without any backwages, but giving him benefits on notional basis for the intervening period. Rule is made absolute. No order as to cost.