JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment dated 12th January, 2004, by which W.P.(L) No. 2537 of 2003 was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the award passed by the Labour Court, Ranchi dated 31st August, 2002 in Reference Case No. 7 of 1998 was set aside. 3. The dispute, referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, was: “Whether the termination from service of Shrab Sri Jameel Akhtar, Jayarat Ansari, Md. Asgar and Md. Shafique employed as casual labour from 12-2-91 to 31-7-96 is justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?” 4. The Labour Court, rejected the contention of the State that the Department of Animal Husbandry is not the industry and thereafter, recorded specific finding that the workmen worked continuously from 12-2-91 to 31-7-96, which is nearly 5 and ½ years and they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Neither any notice was served upon the workmen nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workmen, therefore, the termination of service of the workmen was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal, therefore, held that termination from service of the concerned workmen as casual labour was not justified and they are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 5. The learned Single Judge after narrating the detailed history of the case observed that undisputedly the workmen were appointed without any advertisement, interview or proper selection process and they were engaged verbally and were not appointed against the sanctioned post. Learned Single Judge relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 38 (Supreme Court) and held that every department of the Government cannot be treated to be an “industry” and when the appointments are regularized by the statutory rules, the concept of “industry” to the extent stands excluded. Following the said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (Supra), the learned Single Judge held that in the facts and circumstances, the workmen were not entitled to reinstatement under Section 25-F of the said Act. 6. Following the said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (Supra), the learned Single Judge held that in the facts and circumstances, the workmen were not entitled to reinstatement under Section 25-F of the said Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is just contrary to the settled law that it is not necessary that for obtaining benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, one is required to be selected only by way of advertising the post, interview and regular process of selection. The workmen can be appointed as per the need of the department and, therefore, they are appointed as casual worker on ad hoc basis also. The learned Tribunal also considered those aspect of the matter that there was continued need of the work and these petitioners were also engaged by management considering the need and thereafter they were allowed to continue to work for more than five years. However, because of one Government order directing the departments to terminate the services of the workmen who appointed after a particular date their services have been terminated otherwise the department may not have terminated the services of the workmen. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge though relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above in the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (Supra) but that decision was given in peculiar facts and circumstances. It is submitted that some of other persons, engaged in other jobs, their services were also terminated and ultimately they went to the Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case also issued certain directions directing the workmen to submit their representation to the management and management was directed to consider the suitability of the workmen and if they found suitable then to give appointment even after giving age relaxation. The petitioners-appellants case is on better footing as there being statutory protection under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently submitted that these persons were engaged beyond the rules as well as there was no need of these workmen, therefore, the State Government decided to direct the department to terminate the services of these workmen, who have been given appointment unnecessarily and without there being any need. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently submitted that these persons were engaged beyond the rules as well as there was no need of these workmen, therefore, the State Government decided to direct the department to terminate the services of these workmen, who have been given appointment unnecessarily and without there being any need. However, learned counsel for the State could not dispute that the workmen worked for a longer period of about 5 years. However, learned counsel for the State tried to dispute the fact that the workmen worked for 240 days in a calendar year and submitted that in view of above, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. We considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. So far as finding of Tribunal that the concerned Department is “industry” and, therefore, the protection was available to the workmen is concerned that finding has not been reversed by the learned Single Judge and this issue has not been raised before us. The finding of fact that workmen worked for period of more than five years continuously and completed work of 240 days in a calendar year, that fact has also not been reversed by learned Single Judge. 9. In view of above reasons, the appellants- workmen were fully protected under the provision of Section 25-F of the Act. It appears that learned Single Judge erroneously proceeded on assumption that even for protection under Section 25-F workmen should have been appointed as regular employee. In view of non-reversal of the finding of fact by learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge committed error of law by reversing the award of the Labour Court dated 31st August, 2002 passed in Reference Case No. 7 of 1998. 10. However, learned counsel for the State submitted that appellants worked as casual labour and according to State itself, the workmen workmen worked from 12-2-91 to 31-7-96, and now, it has also been submitted by the respondent that the respondent has no need of the workmen. Therefore, after passing of almost about 16 years, it will be not equitable for the employer to reinstate the employees and they can be compensated. Therefore, after passing of almost about 16 years, it will be not equitable for the employer to reinstate the employees and they can be compensated. It is also stated that it is held in the number of cases by the Supreme Court that upon setting aside of the order of termination or finding the termination illegal the reinstatement is not necessary in all cases. It is also submitted that for such a long period the workmen may have in the gainful employment also. 11. We considered this aspect also and looking to the total period of work as well as on the post which the appellants were working, i.e., as casual labour, we are of the considered opinion that the order of reinstatement with full back wages, as has been passed by the Labour Court, looking to the totality facts of the case and particularly the wages which the workmen, at the relevant time, were getting i.e., Rs. 30.50 per day, we are of the considered opinion that awarding reasonable compensation would meet the ends of justice and looking to the total period of work, we are of the considered opinion that instead of ordering reinstatement, the appellants may be given compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each in satisfaction to their claim. 12. Therefore, the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12th January, 2004 is set aside. The award is modified accordingly. The State Government shall make payment to the workmen within a period of two months from today. The L.P.A is accordingly allowed.