JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The short issue raised in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in substituting the award of payment of compensation in lieu of illegal retrenchment with reinstatement along with consequential benefits? 3. The respondent-workman was employed under the appellant for a total period from 30.01.1988 to 02.05.1992 and his services were terminated from 02.05.1992. The termination was subject-matter of industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court, Jodhpur (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter). By award dated 02.11.1998, the Labour Court found that the respondent workman having been in continuous service for about four years, having actually worked for 240 days in each calendar year of the entire period of his service, his retrenchment could have been validly affected only by complying with the conditions of retrenchment under Chapter V A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947' hereinafter). Admittedly, there having been no compliance of Section 25 F of the Act of 1947, the retrenchment was held to be invalid. However, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the dispute has been raised and referred after seven and a half years, the Labour Court opined that reinstatement in such cases is not an appropriate relief. Instead, it awarded Rs. 41,000/- by way of lump sum compensation. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the workman preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1101/1999, which was allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal dated 31.08.2005 by modifying the award and directed the employer to reinstate the workman, treat him in continuous service from the date of his initial appointment with back wages for the period the workman remained out of employment as a consequence of his illegal retrenchment. 5. We are of the opinion that the substitution of award was not justified, merely by referring to the earlier judgment, facts of which have not been placed before us for making a comparative service chart and other attending circumstances to draw a parallel. What relief is to be given in the particular cases depends on facts and circumstances of each case and cannot depend on straight jacket formula by referring to an earlier judgment. What relief is to be given in the particular cases depends on facts and circumstances of each case and cannot depend on straight jacket formula by referring to an earlier judgment. The catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that the reinstatement, in the case of retrenchment, cannot be granted as a matter of course but has to depend on variable circumstances which include the reason leading to retrenchment, the length of service rendered before the illegal termination of services, the alleged non-compliance of the provisions, the distance of time elapsed from the date of retrenchment and the date of raising dispute and the time, at which the relief is actually accorded. By no means, we are stating the factors to be exhaustive for the purpose of devising appropriate relief in case of illegal retrenchment. 6. Looking to the facts of the present case namely that the respondent-workman was in service for about four years before his services were brought to an end i.e on 02.05.1992. The reference itself was made in the year 1996 and considering the nature of casual employment of respondent employee, the labour court had opined, and in our opinion, it was rightly opined, that it was not a case in which reinstatement ought not to be granted. Therefore, without considering all these aspects, the grant of reinstatement, as a matter of course following illegal retrenchment, was not justified and cannot be sustained. Consequential relief that flows from reinstatement also cannot be extending to the respondent-workman. However, considering the attending circumstances, we are of the opinion that award of compensation of Rs. 41,000/- was grossly inadequate and that amount deserves to be enhanced. In the facts and circumstances, the amount of compensation of Rs. 41,000/-, to be awarded to the workman on account of illegal retrenchment, is enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) that will settle all the claims in respect of illegal retrenchment. The said amount, after adjusting any sum already paid to the workman in terms of award, shall be paid to the respondent-workman by the appellant within two months from today, failing which it shall bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order.With these observations the appeal stands disposed of.Writ Petition disposed of. *******