JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Heard Mr. V.M.Pancholi, learned advocate for the petitioner - workman and Mr. Deepak Sanchela for contesting respondent Municipal Borough. 2. Rule. Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of Respondent No.1 - Municipal Borough. 3. Challenge in this petition is made to the award passed by the Labour Court, Mahesana, dated 20.09.2012, in Reference (LCK) (Old) No.653 of 2003, New Reference (LCM) No.502 of 2008, whereby, after accepting the challenge of the petitioner workman on all contentions, the Labour Court, instead of granting reinstatement, has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. 4. Heard Mr. Pancholi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Sanchela, learned advocate for the respondent Municipal Borough. Both the learned advocates have taken the Court through the material on record, more particularly the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is aggrieved by the operative part of the award and not with the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court. It is contended that all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are gone into and accepted by the Labour Court and on the face of these findings, Labour Court ought to have granted reinstatement, but has awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-, therefore this petition. It is stated by the learned advocate for the petitioner that this petition is not with the grievance that the higher compensation should have been granted, but the petition is for that, that on the face of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, reinstatement ought to have been granted. Learned advocate for the petitioner has conceded that the Labour Court could have exercised discretion while considering the question of awarding back-wages. It is contended that this Court may modify the award of the Labour Court to the extent that instead of lump-sum compensation, the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated in service with back wages to whatever extent this Court deems proper. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanchela, learned advocate for the respondent Municipal Borough raised two contentions. It is stated that the initial engagement of the present petitioner in the service of the Municipal Borough was not after following due process of law and therefore no illegality can be attributed to his discontinuance of the service. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanchela, learned advocate for the respondent Municipal Borough raised two contentions. It is stated that the initial engagement of the present petitioner in the service of the Municipal Borough was not after following due process of law and therefore no illegality can be attributed to his discontinuance of the service. It is further contended that for the purpose of regular employment in Municipal Borough, even the permission of the Director of Municipalities is required, which is not taken and therefore also the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court of India, in case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, [ (2010) 6 SCC 773 ], to contend that granting compensation to the petitioner was the proper mode resorted to, by the Labour Court and therefore this Court may not interfere with the same. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the case of the present petitioner before the Labour Court, as reflected in para:2 of the award, was to the effect that, the petitioner had worked as an Overseer for more than six years with the respondent Municipal Borough and with a view to victimise the petitioner, for the reasons recorded in para:2 of the award, and further to appoint a kith and kin of the authorities of the Municipal Borough at the relevant time and thereby to resort to nepotism, his services came to be discontinued on 23.06.2003 without following any procedure known to law. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court has, after evaluating the evidences led before it, recorded findings to the effect that, the petitioner had worked for more than six years with the respondent Municipal Borough, further that no procedure whatsoever was followed before discontinuing the services of the petitioner and that, even new appointment was made in the place of the petitioner after discontinuing the services of the petitioner. Even the name of the subsequent appointee - one Mr. Rameshbhai Patel, is also given by the petitioner, which is even recoded by the Labour Court. Even the name of the subsequent appointee - one Mr. Rameshbhai Patel, is also given by the petitioner, which is even recoded by the Labour Court. On these findings of facts, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that discontinuance of services of the petitioner by the respondent Municipal Borough was not in accordance with law. Be it noted that these findings of Labour Court are not challenged by the respondent Municipal Borough. On the face of these findings, the Labour Court, granted lump-sum compensation only and not the reinstatement. This, in my view, has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which needs to be set-right by this Court. Learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that, since the petitioner had worked for more than six years, the delay in proceedings before the Labour Court, which initially was at Kalol, which subsequently came to be shifted to Mehsana, should not weigh against the petitioner since nothing is attributed to the petitioner. The reason recorded by the Labour Court, not to award reinstatement is this delay, which in my view, should not come in the way of the petitioner in the facts of this case. So far the contention of the Municipal Borough of not following due procedure by it, should also not come in the way of the petitioner since it is the settled position of law that the employer can not contend that he had to do something, which he had not done and therefore the workman is not entitled to relief. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court of India, in case of Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel [ (2012) 9 SCC 310 ] : 2012 III CLR 423 SC. Reliance placed by learned advocate for the respondent on the judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court of India, in case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra), to support the grant of compensation by the Labour Court, in my view, would not take the case of the respondent any further, since in the said decision, grant of compensation is held to be one of the possible mode recognised by the Apex Court and it cannot be termed as a mandate that in such cases reinstatement cannot be ordered. Be it noted that learned advocate for the respondent Municipal Borough was at loss to respond to the query of the Court, as to what is their response with regard to engagement of one Mr. Rameshbhai Patel, after termination of services of the petitioner, as reflected in para:16 of the award of the Labour Court. Further, upholding the grant of compensation, instead of reinstatement, in the facts of this case, would legitimise the arbitrariness, victimisation and resorting to nepotism by the respondent authority. For these reasons, in my view, the award of the Labour Court needs to be modified to the extent that, instead of compensation, the petitioner needs to be ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service. Considering the totality of the facts, according to me, ends of justice would meet, if no back wages are awarded in favour of the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to his wages, with effect from 01.11.2012, since the award is dated 20.09.2012. The calculation of wages should also be, considering the continuity of the service of the petitioner. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent, and with the direction to the respondent Municipal Borough, that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service, with continuity of service. The order of reinstatement shall be passed within a period of two months from today. As observed and ordered above, the petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages, however, shall be entitled to wages from 01.11.2012, since the award is dated 20.09.2012. Rule made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs. Over and above, normal mode of service, direct service is also permitted. Petition allowed.