ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by award dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Satna whereby the dispute referred to it regarding illegal retrenchment of the petitioner has been dismissed and rejected. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by recording a finding to the effect that the petitioner had worked with the respondent on daily wages for a limited period of 89 days only and therefore as he has not worked for continuous period of 240 days, he is not entitled to any benefit or relief under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court while dismissing the claim of the petitioner has totally ignored the document (Ex.P/2) filed by him which was a certificate issued by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Maihar dated 15.5.1995 to the effect that the petitioner has worked in the establishment of respondent from 2.5.1994 to 15.5.1995. 4. The counsel for the petitioner further states that the Labour Court has also not taken into consideration the note-sheets of the respondent-Municipality which have been brought on record and which clearly indicate that the petitioner had been engaged as a daily wager w.e.f. 28.9.1994 till June, 1995. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Labour Court has also not taken into consideration the admission made by the Chief Municipal Officer i.e. witness No.1 for the respondent wherein he has clearly admitted that the petitioner had rendered services in the establishment of Municipality from 28.9.1994 to June 1995 which comes to 273 days. 6. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid admitted and undisputed facts, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-Municipality per contra submits that the petitioner was engaged on temporary basis for a period of 89 days on account of suspension of one Shri Shashi Kumar, who was working as a Typist in the establishment. It is submitted that the petitioner was permitted to work only for 89 days and thereafter he was disengaged and therefore no fault can be found with in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner was permitted to work only for 89 days and thereafter he was disengaged and therefore no fault can be found with in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. 8. However, when the learned counsel for the respondent is strictly put to question in respect to admission made by the Chief Municipal Officer witness No.1 for the Municipality and the document Ex.P/2 and the note-sheets of the Municipality, he is unable to explain the admission made therein to the effect that the petitioner had been continuously engaged by them to do typist work in place of suspended employee from 28.9.1994 to June 1995. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the admission made by the respondent and their statement as well as document regarding engagement of the petitioner for more than 270 days, I find that order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the reference is unsustainable as it suffers from perversity and therefore the same is accordingly set aside. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties are heard on the question of the relief of reinstatement. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh (2012)1 SCC 558 , Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh (2013)5 SCC 136 and Hari Nandan Prasad and another v. Employer I/R to Management of PIC and another, 2014 AIR SCW 1383 has held that a daily wager who is engaged for a short period of time without following any procedure provided by law and is thereafter disengaged, is not entitled to reinstatement even if he has worked for more than 240 days and the appropriate relief in such cases is to award compensation. 11. In the facts of the present case as it is apparent that the petitioner was engaged only to perform temporary work in place of a suspended employee and has worked only for 270 days in the year 1994-95 and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the present petition is partly allowed and it is ordered that the respondent-Municipality in place of reinstatement would grant compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand). The said amount shall be disburshed to the petitioner by the respondent-Municipality at the earliest preferably within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest on banking rates on the amount of compensation till the date of its realization. 12. The petition is accordingly allowed in part to the existent indicated hereinabove.