By Court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant Management is aggrieved against the order dated the March, 2004 passed in CWJC No. 3205 of 1997(R), whereby the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad dated 12th May, 1997 in Reference Case No.130 of 1990 have been upheld. 3. The Tribunal has found that it is the case of the workmen that they were engaged for providing the water to the employees of the appellant Company which they used to carry on their shoulder with the help of one BHAR , which is a mode of carrying the watter i.e at a time two buckets of water with one bamboo long or short stick and carrying it on shoulder. They were initially engaged in the year 1979 and in the year 1988, specifically from 1st February, 1988, they were denied the wages and also work. In view of the above, following issue was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication : “Whether the action of the Management of Kuju Pundi Project of CCL Ltd. P.O. Kuju, Dist. Hazaribagh by not regularizing S/Sri Kalicharan Mahato and 54 other workmen as mentioned in the list attached with Annexure and also not making payment of their wages individually for the period from 1.2.1988 to 16.2.1988 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?” 4. The contention of the Management before the Tribunal was that it was the temporary work for supplying of water to the employees of the appellant Company , who were residing in the appellant's Colonies and with the laying down of pipelines for providing water to the house of the employees , this system was abolished and these workers were working for a few hours in a day only, that too, through Contractor. 5. The Labour court after considering the evidence held that the work was not through the Contractor and the work was of the permanent nature. The workers completed more than 240 days in any calender year and they work for a very long period , may be from 1979 to 1985 or not less than to complete 240 days in a calender year. The workers completed more than 240 days in any calender year and they work for a very long period , may be from 1979 to 1985 or not less than to complete 240 days in a calender year. Since, the order of termination of service of the workmen found to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal directed the appellant Management to give notional reinstatement and regularization to all the workmen, who are 54 in numbers from 16th February, 1988 and declared that the concerned workmen are entitled for back wages from the date of issuance of Reference i.e. 4th June, 1990 with 40% of full back wages and other benefits. 6. This award was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, though tried to challenge the award on the ground that the work was taken from these workmen through Contractor as well as that the work was of the temporary in nature and, that too, for some hours in a day only. But, after going through the reasons given in the impugned award, we are of the considered opinion that no interference in that finding of fact is required and the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the award cannot be interfered. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has not considered that in this fact situation whether reinstatement could have been compensated by the award of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant Management submitted that in view of catena of decisions of the various High Courts as well as this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter where the employee has not worked since 1988 and award was stayed by this Court, so far as reinstatement is concerned, then in that situation the effect to the award can be given today in the year 2012 and whether it will be just, proper and equitable to continue the order of reinstatement and whether compensation in lieu of the reinstatement can be passed. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent workmen vehemently submitted that fundamental rule is to reinstate in a case when the order of termination of service found to be in violation of Section 25F. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent workmen vehemently submitted that fundamental rule is to reinstate in a case when the order of termination of service found to be in violation of Section 25F. It is submitted that even in a departmental enquiry punishment is awarded, in that situation if the order of punishment is set aside, reinstatement is ordered. Here, in this case, there was no allegation of misconduct upon the workmen and their removal was unilaterally made by the Management without fault of the workmen. It is submitted that certain criteria are laid down by the Courts and in that eventualities only the reinstatement can be denied and compensation can be awarded. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court delivered in the case of B.Choudhury Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur and another reported in 1983 Labour & Industrial Cases, 1755, wherein the Division Bench in para22 considered under what circumstances the back wages can be granted and on what count the reinstatement can be denied. According to the learned counsel for the respondent , the relevant factors are employee's age; length of service in the establishment; capacity of the employer and nature of employer's business; gainful employment and mitigation of damages and circumstances leading to the disengagement and past conduct etc. and it is also submitted that in case there is possibility of disharmony then also the reinstatement can be denied. It is submitted that none of the condition is available in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of the above, relied upon several judgments, which are AIR 1978 S.C. 8 ( Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Shambhu Nath Mukherji and ors.) , AIR 1984 S.C. 1892 (Naval Kishore Vs. M/s Darbshaw B.Cursetjee's Sons and ors.), 1991 Labour & Industrial Cases, 1650 (V. B. Rao Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another) and 1990(2) Labour Law Journal, 226 (Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner(P)Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner(P)Ltd.) 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the facts of the above cases. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another) and 1990(2) Labour Law Journal, 226 (Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner(P)Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner(P)Ltd.) 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the facts of the above cases. At the outset, we may state that in all the cases, except in 1980 Labour & Industrial Cases, 2004, the Courts have granted a compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement may vary from Rs.30,000/to Rs.2,5,000/, depending upon the facts of each case. It appears from these judgments that the salary drawn by such workman/employee and remaining period of length of service was also considered. Even in a case where Division Bench of the Patna High in B.Choudhury's case (supra) considered the principle on which the reinstatement can be compensated and compensation can be award, in that case, the workman disengaged in the year 1970 was allowed compensation of Rs.30,000/after observing that by the time said order was passed by the High Court, more than 12 years passed from the date of discharge of the employee, which was made on 4th August, 1970. 11. In view of the above reasons, it is clear from the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent himself that the reinstatement is not necessary order in all cases. The compensation can be granted in lieu of reinstatement. Here, in this case, we have to look into the nature of the work which was taken from the workmen and at the cost of repetition, we may observe that the workmen were engaged for supplying of water by carrying water in the buckets lifted on the wooden stick and carrying it on shoulder by the employees of the appellant's Colonies and their work was stopped on the ground of having pipe line to supply the water to these Colonies. The workmen were getting initially a meager amount of 0.25 paise and it was increased to 0.37 paise Per BHAR and thereafter , as stated by the learned counsel for the workmen, the workmen were getting Rs.300/per month. We cannot ignore all these facts and in that situation we are of the considered opinion that asking the employer to reengage and reinstate the workmen after about twenty two years to twenty four years will not be equitable and just relief. 12. We cannot ignore all these facts and in that situation we are of the considered opinion that asking the employer to reengage and reinstate the workmen after about twenty two years to twenty four years will not be equitable and just relief. 12. In view of the above reasons, so far as reinstatement is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that the workmen shall be entitled to the compensation in lieu of the reinstatement. So far as quantum is concerned, looking to the wages which they were getting as well as looking to the fact that under Section 17B, the workmen are still getting the last drawn wages , the adequate compensation in the facts and circumstances to each of the employees will be Rs.30,000/(Thirty thousand), which will be sufficient compensation and the same is in addition to the benefit which the employee got under Section 17B . 13. Therefore, with the aforesaid modification, this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.