JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Sunil Samdaria, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the appeal, are that the appellant, who claimed to have been appointed as a daily wager with the respondent-University in January, 1998, was terminated from its service on 19.06.2004. He raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was terminated in total non-compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was eventually referred to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer and upon full adjudication, it, by its award dated 09.09.2009, interfered with the termination of the service of the applicant/appellant, but as a consequential relief, granted him only compensation. Direction for his reinstatement in service was not made. Being aggrieved, the appellant instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15956/2009 seeking this Court's intervention. By judgment and order dated 19.03.2012, impugned in the appeal, the challenge was answered in the negative. 3. Mr. Samdaria has argued that as the learned Industrial Court had interfered with the termination of the service of the appellant on the ground that it was in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act, it ought not to have denied him the benefit of reinstatement in service. To buttress this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow And Another, (2001) 2 SCC 423 : 2001 I CLR 975 SC . 4. We have duly considered the pleaded facts, documents on record as well as the arguments advanced. 5. A bare perusal of the award dated 09.09.2009 would disclose in no uncertain terms that the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, on an exhaustive analysis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, had concluded that though it was not established that as claimed by the respondent-University the applicant/ appellant had been employed by a contractor and that there was no proof as well that he had been drafted into its (respondent-University) service by following the procedure prescribed by law. The learned Industrial Court, thus, though in the attendant facts and circumstances held that the termination of the services of the applicant/appellant was not in accordance with law, declined, in the above backdrop, the relief of his reinstatement in service and instead, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Industrial Court, thus, though in the attendant facts and circumstances held that the termination of the services of the applicant/appellant was not in accordance with law, declined, in the above backdrop, the relief of his reinstatement in service and instead, awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Single Judge, by judgment and order impugned, did endorse this determination. 6. On an analysis of the materials on record, we do not see any cogent or convincing reason to take a different view. The findings recorded by the learned Industrial Court, as referred to hereinabove, are wholly based on the pleadings and the evidence on record. Having regard to the nature of appointment of the appellant and the service rendered by him, we are of the view that the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, did not commit a cardinal error in law in withholding the relief of reinstatement to him. Though, ordinarily, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court umpteen times as also in Vikramaditya Pandey (supra), that once the termination of the services of an employee is held to be wrongful or illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages ought to be granted, it has been underlined as well that in special circumstances, the same can also be denied. To reiterate, the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, on an elaborate scrutiny of the materials on record, did enter a finding that the engagement whereunder the appellant had been rendering services, was not as approved by law. 7. Be that as it may, in the assessment of the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, in view of this factual background, a direction for his reinstatement in service was not called for. The reasons recorded in the award to this effect and as sustained by the learned Single Judge, in our view, are neither illogical nor unworthy of any credence and are instead relevant and adequately persuasive. 8. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the instant appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.144/2012 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands closed.Special Appeal dismissed. *******