JUDGMENT : R.R. Tripathi, J. Jetpur Navagadh Municipality is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 15-6-2006 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 651 of 1991, whereby the learned Judge of the Labour Court partly allowed the Reference of the workman and held that the action of the Municipality of terminating the services of the workman is illegal. The learned Judge quashed the same and ordered the Municipality to reinstate the workman with continuity of service, without back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. The petition came up for hearing before this Court on 10-11-2006 and the Court issued Rule and notice as to interim relief returnable on 15-12-2006. The Court was pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para 8(c), subject to compliance of Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Para 8(c) reads as under: "8. (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application implementation or operation or execution of the award dated 15-6-2006 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Ref. L.C.R. No. 651 of 1991 may kindly be stayed." 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi for the petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has committed an error in allowing the Reference even partly and awarding reinstatement. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the workman was appointed on a fixed term and on expiry of the term, the workman stood automatically relieved from service. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the workman was for a definite period and on expiry of that period, the services were to come to an end, and therefore, the petitioner-Municipality cannot be accused of terminating the services of the petitioner or even of retrenchment. 2.1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to the observations made by the learned Judge of the Labour Court while discussing issue No. 1, wherein the learned Judge has held that, "the work of the Octroi Department of the Municipality was of permanent nature and that being so, it cannot be said that the workman was appointed on an establishment for a definite work, which is required to be completed within a specified time". Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Judge of the Labour Court missed an important aspect of the matter that the workman was appointed in Octroi Department in place of a regular employee of the Municipality from that Department who had gone on leave. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has erred in considering two different aspects, i.e. (1) nature of the work and (2) nature of appointment. Though Octroi Department of the Municipality was of permanent nature, at the relevant time, because Department became non-existent when Octroi came to be abolished in the year 2001, but then the appointment given to the workman was in lieu of a regular employee, who proceeded on leave. That being so, the learned Judge of the Labour Court could not have imposed workman on the Municipality by ordering reinstatement on his original post. The original post was temporary appointment in lieu or regular employee who proceeded on leave. 2.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that while considering issue No. 2, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has again erred in holding that, "the deposition of the workman cannot be disbelieved". The question was, "whether new recruitment was made after termination of the services of the workman". Without giving details, it was contended that, "One Mr. Jitendra Vyas and Prakash Gida, who were working as daily wagers, were reinstated in service after the matter was decided in their favour". Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that reinstating the persons who were working as daily wagers pursuant to an order passed by the competent Court cannot be equated with the new recruitment after the termination of the workman in question. 2.3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in similar matter being Spl. C.A. No. 21932 of 2006, this Court deemed it proper after taking into consideration the facts of the case that reinstatement is not warranted, instead some compensation if paid will serve the ends of justice. The judgment in Spl. C.A. No. 21932 of 2006 is still awaited, but it was decided at the time of hearing of the matter that the workman be paid compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The learned Advocate submitted that in that case, the workman had put in two years service. 3. This Court is of the opinion that the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner have merit and deserve consideration. 4. 35,000/-. The learned Advocate submitted that in that case, the workman had put in two years service. 3. This Court is of the opinion that the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner have merit and deserve consideration. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondent-workman requested that without making fine distinction between the petitioner of Spl. C.A. No. 21932 of 2006 and the respondent-workman herein on the basis of length of service put in by these workmen with the Municipality, the Court may be gracious enough to award the same compensation of Rs. 35,000/- as that will be in the interest of justice. Learned Advocate for the respondent-workman submitted that this submission is not by way of concession. Learned Advocate for the respondent-workman submitted that otherwise it is the case of the respondent-workman that the workman was given appointment for a fixed period, but that was not once, the appointment was given thrice and thus, the workman was able to complete 270 days because every time, the appointment was given for 90 days. 5. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the octroi is already abolished in the year 2001 and that the appointment of the workman was only in lieu of a regular employee, who proceeded on leave, this Court is of the opinion that the award qua reinstatement cannot be upheld and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.1. Taking into consideration the fact that the workman had served for three consecutive terms of 90 days and since 30-4-2007, he is asked to work instead of paying him idle wages under Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in fitness of things if the order of reinstatement is substituted by an order of payment of compensation. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the award is modified and petitioner-Municipality is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand Only). With this direction, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. The amount of compensation shall be paid as early as possible, but until the amount is paid, it will not be open to the petitioner-Municipality to terminate workman.