Tarun Agarwala, J. The workman being aggrieved by the award of the labour court has filed the present writ petition. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Electrician in the year 1989 and, since then, has been working without any break in service. The services of the petitioner was dispensed with on 13th August, 1998 without giving any notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the termination of his services, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the labour court. The reference was "whether the employers were justified in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 13th August, 1998 ? If not, to what relief was the workman entitled to." 2. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the labour court held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and had worked for almost 9 years, and consequently, the employer was not justified in terminating the services of the petitioner without assigning any reason. The labour court also found that the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not complied with. The labour court also found that the petitioner was entitled to be given a notice and retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court, however, instead of reinstating the petitioner in service moulded the relief and paid compensation amounting to Rs. 3 lacs. The workman, being aggrieved by this portion of this award, namely, payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ritvik Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the employers. 4. The contention of the petitioner is, that having worked for almost 9 years continuously without any break in service and, in the absence of any misdemeanour of his part, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in service and that compensation in lieu of reinstatement was not justified in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 5. 4. The contention of the petitioner is, that having worked for almost 9 years continuously without any break in service and, in the absence of any misdemeanour of his part, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement in service and that compensation in lieu of reinstatement was not justified in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the employer vehemently contended that the award of the labour court was perfectly correct and that the workman was not a regular employee and that he was working as a temporary employee, and consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to be reinstated as a matter of right. The learned counsel submitted that in the given circumstances, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was the appropriate relief given to the workman. It was also urged that the workman did not allege before the labour court that he was not gainfully employed and therefore the question of reinstatement in the service does not arise. The learned counsel further contended that in similar circumstances, the labour court directed reinstatement of service of some other workers in the construction department of the employer, against which, the employer filed a writ petition, which was partly allowed and instead of reinstatement, the Court modified the award by giving compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The learned counsel submitted that in the light of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the award of the labour court awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement was perfectly justified. 6. When an order of termination is set aside by a labour court, the normal rule is reinstatement in the service of the employer. In exceptional cases, reinstatement in service can be denied for valid reasons, otherwise the normal rule is reinstatement in service. This trend of reinstatement in service continued for several decades, but recently, the trend has been changed and a departure has been made through various judgements of the Supreme Court. Before elucidating on the subject, reinstatement with back wages and reinstatement without any back wages needs to be clarified. 7. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey AIR 2006 Supreme Court 586, the Supreme Court held that in every case of reinstatement, the entire back wages ought not to be awarded even if there has been a violation of the provision of 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 8. 7. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey AIR 2006 Supreme Court 586, the Supreme Court held that in every case of reinstatement, the entire back wages ought not to be awarded even if there has been a violation of the provision of 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 8. In Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai 2006 ( 11) SCC 684 , the Supreme Court held that where the dispute was raised belatedly and there was a long delay in making the reference, the relief of reinstatement was not justified and in such circumstances, lumpsum compensation should have been awarded. 9. In U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Man Singh 2006 ( 7) SCC 752 , the Supreme Court held that where the workman was not appointed in accordance with the Rules and the dispute was raised after a long lapse of time, in such circumstances, the relief of reinstatement was not justified and that compensation was the adequate remedy in lieu of reinstatement. 10. In Mehboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and another 2008 ( 1) SCC 575 , the Supreme Court held that a daily wager who may have worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and their services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not entitled for reinstatement in service as he does not hold a right on that post, and consequently, a daily wager was only entitled for compensation. 11. Similar view was held by this Court in State of U.P. and another Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others 2011 ( 3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2568. 12. On the other hand, with regard to the back wages, the Supreme Court held that where the termination was held to be illegal, the labour court was justified in reinstating the workman, but was not justified in granting full back wages. In General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh 2005 ( 5) SCC 591 , the Supreme Court held that the order for backwages should not be passed mechanically. There are other factors, which are required to be considered before granting backwages, namely, length of service whether it was an ad hoc appointment or a permanent appointment, whether the workman was working on daily wage, temporary or permanent or whether he was in a position to get another employment during the pendency of the dispute. 13. There are other factors, which are required to be considered before granting backwages, namely, length of service whether it was an ad hoc appointment or a permanent appointment, whether the workman was working on daily wage, temporary or permanent or whether he was in a position to get another employment during the pendency of the dispute. 13. Similar view was again reiterated in Kanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamin Mirza 2009 LIC 415. 14. In Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan and Another Vs. S.C.Sharma 2005 ( 2) SCC 363 , the Supreme Court held that the workman was not entitled to back wages as a matter of right and that the employee had to show that he was not gainfully employed and that the initial burden was upon him. 15. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary employee, but had worked continuously for 9 years. There is an order passed by the Controlling Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act awarding gratuity to the petitioner on the ground that he had worked 240 days in a calender year for 9 continuous years and consequently was entitled for gratuity. This order has become final interse between the parties. 16. The appointment of a daily wager is a different and distinct from an appointment on a temporary basis. Appointment on a daily wages is on account of exigencies of work whereas a person appointed on a temporary basis means that there is requirement for work and is not appointed on a day to day basis, but the appointment is for a considerable period of time. 17. In the instant case, the Court finds from the written statement of the employers that the petitioner was engaged in the Electricity Department for various projects and according to the employers upon the completion of the project, the work comes to an end. The nature of work specified by the employer indicates the temporary nature of work. However, the Court finds that this temporary nature of work continued unabated for 9 long years and the petitioner continued to remain a temporary workman. The petitioner alleges that when he came into the zone of regularization, the employers passed an order of termination of the services of the workman. However, the Court finds that this temporary nature of work continued unabated for 9 long years and the petitioner continued to remain a temporary workman. The petitioner alleges that when he came into the zone of regularization, the employers passed an order of termination of the services of the workman. The Court further finds that there is nothing to indicate that the construction work, in which, the petitioner was engaged had come to an end and that the petitioner's services was no longer required thereafter. 18. In the light of the aforesaid, the contention of the employer that the petitioner was only a temporary employee and was therefore not entitled for reinstatement in services does not hold good especially when no evidence has been brought on record to justify the termination of the workman. There is also no evidence to prove that the project, in which, the petitioner was employed had come to an end or that there was no further requirement of work. The Court further finds that the petitioner having worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and having worked 9 years was entitled for reinstatement in service. The labour court has misinterpreted the judgments cited and has erred in granting compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Supreme Court has denied the relief of reinstatement in those cases, where the dispute was belatedly referred for adjudication or where the workman was a dailywager. In the instant case, the petitioner was not a dailywager, but was a temporarily employed. The Court does not find that there has been an unreasonable delay in raising the dispute. 19. Employment in an industry is not an easy task and in these modern times, when there is a huge unemployment, it is difficult for a workman to get reemployment, especially when a workman has worked for some length of time and seeks employment at a later stage in another industry. A question is normally asked by a new employer, whether the workman had worked at at another place earlier and when it comes to the knowledge of the new employer that the services of the workman was terminated earlier for whatever reasons, a shadow of doubt creeps in the mind of the employer with regard to his re-employment. 20. Consequently considering this aspect, reinstatement in service is the normal rule. 20. Consequently considering this aspect, reinstatement in service is the normal rule. Once the order of termination is found to be illegal and is set aside, unless a departure is made for strong reasons, reinstatement in service should be granted. 21. The Court is of the opinion that this is not a case whether a departure can be made denying the petitioner reinstatement in service and giving compensation in lieu thereof. 22. In Writ petition No. 8784 of 2002 M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi and Another, the Court considered the factum of resignation of the workman and even though he had worked for almost 8 years held that in the given circumstances was only entitled for compensation instead of compensation. The High Court, accordingly modified the award of the labour court granting compensation of Rs. One lac instead of reinstatement in service. In Writ petition no. 8749 of 2002, M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Surendra Pratap Singh and Anothers decided on 04th July, 2011, the Court considered the factum that the workman was appointed for limited period of time and in view of the provision of Section 2 ( oo)( bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court was of the opinion that the workman was entitled for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 23. The aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, is distinguishable. 24. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the award of the labour court directing payment of compensation of Rs. 3 lacs in lieu of reinstatement was not correct, and consequently, to that extent, the award of the labour court can not be sustained and is modified to the extent that the workman petitioner would be reinstated in service. 25. In so far as, the back wages are concerned, the Court finds that the petitioner has pleaded before this Court as well as before the labour court that he has not been gainfully employed from the date of his termination of his services. 26. In the light of the aforesaid and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Kendriya Sangathan ( Supra), the petitioner has discharged the initial burden and the onus was upon the employer to prove that he was gainfully employed. 27. 26. In the light of the aforesaid and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Kendriya Sangathan ( Supra), the petitioner has discharged the initial burden and the onus was upon the employer to prove that he was gainfully employed. 27. Considering the aforesaid facts and in order to settle the matter once and for all, instead of remitting the matter to the labour court, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for 20 per cent of the back wages from the date of the order of the termination till the date of the award. From the date of the award, till he is reinstated, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages on the principle of "no work no pay". 28. In view of the aforesaid, the award of the labour court is modified, the Court further directs the employer to reinstate the workman within four weeks from today, from which date, the petitioner would be entitled for wages. 29. The writ petition is allowed.