JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. : In W.P.(C) No.12036 of 2008, the petitioner-management challenges the award dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in industrial Dispute Case No.54 of 2001 directing the petitioner to reinstate the workmen in service without any back wages. In W.P.(C) No.13067 of 2008, the petitioner-All Orissa Technical Printing Employees Association (in short 'the Association') prays for modification of the aforesaid order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No.54 of 2001 with a further prayer to grant reinstatement without any back wages to 63 workmen and to grant reinstatement in service to all the 83 workmen with effect from 01.04.2001, continuity of service, full back wages and other benefits. As legal issues involved in these writ petitions are similar, this Court is taking up W.P.(C) No.12036 of 2008 as a leading case. 2.The facts as narrated in the present writ petitions are as follows : The Management of Printing Stationary and Publication, Orissa, Cuttack (in short ''the management'') is a vast organisation of Orissa having its main press at Cuttack and many branch presses at different locations in Orissa having about 2689 regular employees besides having sanctioned strength of 507 numbers of Helpers. The workmen of these writ petitions were under the employment of the management in different sections i.e. Production Section, Binding Section etc. for doing the job of printing of books, manual, calendar, stationaries, diary etc. for the Govt of Orissa. Accordingly, the workmen were under the employment of the management as N.M.R. helpers for a quite long period and they have rendered services continuously to the management ranging from at least 6 years to 12 years before termination of their services with effect from 1.4.2001. It is averred that services of 133 numbers of casual helpers were terminated, but out of them, 50 helpers were retained by virtue of an order of State Administrative Tribunal. The rest 83 casual helpers are the workmen, who raised industrial dispute and the same having failed, the present writ petition has been filed. It is averred that neither any individual notice has been sent to them before their retrenchment from service nor any pay or compensation has been paid to them while terminating their services. The rest 83 casual helpers are the workmen, who raised industrial dispute and the same having failed, the present writ petition has been filed. It is averred that neither any individual notice has been sent to them before their retrenchment from service nor any pay or compensation has been paid to them while terminating their services. Similarly the management did not obtain any prior permission form the competent authorities before termination of their services, even if an industrial dispute was pending before the authorities of the Labour Department. As averred, ignoring seniority of the present workmen, juniors to them are still continuing in employment of the management. Accordingly, they have challenged the order of termination of their services by the management stating the same to be illegal, claiming their reinstatement in service with back wages. 3.It is contended that the workmen have filed written statement before the labour Court stating therein that the management is a Government organisation engaged in printing and supply of stationery articles to all Government offices besides repairing of type writers and duplicators of all such offices and the management concerned being not involved in any business activity and its work being only in public interest of the State of Orissa, the management is not an industry and the dispute raised by the workmen cannot be entertained under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the I.D. Act). The workmen were casual helpers, and were being engaged by the management from time to time on daily wages basis as and when need arose and as per availability of funds for payment of wages. They have not been assigned any specific work and none of them had rendered service to the management for 6 to 12 years continuously. The management organisation is under the administrative control of the Government of Orissa and it carries out the orders of the Government and due to non-availability of fund for payment of their wages, they were disengaged from service with effect from 1.4.2001. Further Contention of the management is that the present industrial dispute before the labour Court is not maintainable in the eye of law and as such the workmen are not entitled to the benefit of reinstatement in service much less to any benefit of back wages and that the award dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. As claimed by the workmen, the management denies that 83 helpers are employees of Orissa Government Press and that they were engaged by the management for doing some manual work of casual nature at the time of need subject to availability of funds in wage head and that there was no specific work for any specific workman. Therefore, it can be presumed that they have not work for 6 to 12 years continuously. It is further averred that merely because a temporary employee or a casual employee or a casual wage worker is continued to work for a long time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in a regular service or made permanent. Merely on the strength of such continuance, as temporary employee cannot claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Accordingly, it is prayed that the award dated 14.9.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.54 of 2001 is liable to be set aside. 4.On the other hand, the Association of the workmen challenges the award dated 14.9.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court in the aforesaid I.D. Case where out of 83 employees involved, only 63 employees have been directed to be reinstated without any back wages. It is contended that the State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute and after failure of conciliation proceeding before the Asst. Labour Officer, Cuttack, the reference was made to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for adjudication on the following points : ''Whether the demand of the Technical Printing Association regarding termination of Services of Shri Mahendra Nayak and 82 other casual Helpers, as per the list enclosed, by the Director, Printing, Stationery and Publication, Orissa, Cuttack with effect from 1st April 2001 is legal/or justified ? if not what relief they are entitled to ?'' 5.The Labour Court on a threadbare discussion of the evidence adduced by both management and workmen's Association, came to a conclusion that the management organisation is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the I.D.F Act, the workmen are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and it is an Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the services of the workmen were illegally terminated and as such they are entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service without any back wages, which is under challenge. 6.Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since new technology is adopted in the establishment i.e. Directorate of Printing Stationary and Publication Orissa, there was no work for the workers, as the manual work, which was being done by them, are being managed by machineries and the establishment is only doing Government departmental work, being the sovereign of the State and as such, it is not an industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Acts. He further contended that the Court below should have considered the compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In support of his contention, he has cited the decision in the cases of Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532 and Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. and another v. Giram Singh, 2013 LLR 225, wherein the apex Court has observed that the condition precedent for retrenchment compensation on termination of a workman is, who has worked for more than 240 days. 7.Learned counsel for the workmen, however, submitted that the termination of 63 workmen out of 83 workmen, was held to be illegal and unjust and were directed to be reinstated in service without back wages, whereas the workmen have claimed reinstatement in to service to all the 83 workmen with full back wages and continuity in service. 8.Misc. Case No.17840 of 2012 arising out of W.P.(C) No.12036 of 2008 has been filed by six persons, who are the mother widow wife and four children of the workman, namely, Ashok Kumar Swain, who died on 20.6.2008, out of 63 workmen to whom the Court below has directed for reinstatement into service. Since they are necessary party to the writ petition, their petition for intervention was allowed and they were impleaded as opposite parties also. Out of 63 workmen, 27 workmen also filed Misc. Case No.7633 of 2012 arising out of W.P.(C) No.12036 of 2008 for intervention, even though the association is contesting the case on their behalf and they have also engaged counsel who supported the impugned award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bhubaneswar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the workmen that sufficient work is available for all 133 workmen including 83 workmen involved in the case. It is submitted by learned counsel for the workmen that sufficient work is available for all 133 workmen including 83 workmen involved in the case. However, the management has only retained 53 numbers of workmen and some of them are juniors to the present 83 workmen and the Court below rightly ignored the fact that whether the establishment is a profitable organisation or not. The Court below has considered that the establishment engaged the workmen, who were rendering service as the establishment has engaged them for its work. Therefore, the establishment is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen were working as casual labourers and discharging their duties in its different sections doing printing and supply of stationery articles to all Government offices, besides repairing of type writers and duplicators of all such offices. Admittedly the workmen were being paid wages on heir for such work and as such they are coming within the meaning of the term ''workmen'' as per the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the Court below on analysing the evidence on record held that except 20 workmen, out of 83, who have rendered more than 240 days of service during the period of 12 months preceding to the date of their retrenchment with effect from 1.4.2001, the termination of the services of the workmen is illegal and unjustified and should be interfered with. It is further submitted that 20 workmen, whose applications were rejected, were also continuing in service for several years as reflected under Ext.11 series and as per the principle of law last come first go, retrenchment of those 20 workmen is illegal, as the said principle has not been followed and the juniors have been retained in service. The Finance Department passed a resolution on 4.9.2012 notified in the extraordinary gazette on 26.9.2012 wherein it was stipulated that casual/daily wage labourers engaged in different Government establishments prior to 12.4.1993 are to be given temporary status first then for absorption against regular Group 'D' vacancies. In view of the above, the finding of the Court below so far as 20 workmen are concerned to be set aside and their case should be considered afresh. 9.Considering the rival submission of the parties and since the workmen are daily labourers and in view of the principle laid down by the apex Court in the case of Asstt. In view of the above, the finding of the Court below so far as 20 workmen are concerned to be set aside and their case should be considered afresh. 9.Considering the rival submission of the parties and since the workmen are daily labourers and in view of the principle laid down by the apex Court in the case of Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp (supra) that principle as/is relevant for granting relief of reinstatement when termination of workmen is held to be illegal before exercising its judicial discretion. The Labour Court has to be keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute held that there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back wages and instead the Labour Court can award compensation. Further it is held that a distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief. 10.In the present case, it is the specific stand of the management that there was no work for the establishment as manual work which was being performed by the workmen are being managed by machineries and the establishment is only doing Government work. The Labour Court has not taken into consideration such fact while passing the impugned award. There is no doubt that the workmen are daily wagers and they have not been engaged in any regular posts. Therefore, this Court modifies the impugned order in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As the compensation in lieu of restatement is proper to a daily wager, the petitioner management is directed to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety-five thousand) to each of the 63 workmen, who have been directed to be reinstated into service by the Labour Court. Similarly, so far as other 20 workmen named in the award abandoned their respective services prior to 31st March, 2001, no compensation is awarded in their favour. With the aforesaid observation, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. Petition disposed of.