JUDGMENT : Jayant M. Patel, J. The petitioner by this petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference (LCS) No. 319 of 1991, whereby, the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement with 50% back wages and the expenses of Rs. 2,000/. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 07.04.1990 the General Board of the petitioner Market Committee passed a resolution for appointment of four clerks on daily-wages at Rs. 40/- per day for a limited period of two months. After expiry of two months, they were again engaged on the same terms and conditions for a period of two months at Rs. 50/- per day. Again, at the expiry of the period, such appointment was renewed at the interval of two months and lastly, on 01.11.1990 the appointment orders were issued for two months, which were expiring on 31.12.1990. However, before expiry of the appointment, on 23.12.1990 the services of the respondent came to be terminated. The dispute was raised under Industrial Disputes Act by the respondent, which came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in Reference (LCS) No. 319 of 199. The Labour Court at the conclusion of the case passed above referred judgment and award. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 2. I have heard Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Darshana Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that following aspects are not in dispute: (i) The appointment of the respondent-workman was for a period of two months, which were to expire on 31.12.1990. (ii) The first appointment was given from 01.05.1990 for a period of two months and the same was to be extended for further period of two months and continued at the interval of two months. (iii) If the period is counted continuously from 01.05.1990 till 23.12.1990, and if the nonworking days are excluded, it may further fall short for 240 days. (iv) The appointment was to end on 31.12.1990, but the termination is made on 23.12.1990. No retrenchment compensation has been paid nor salary from 23.12.1990 to 31.12.1990 was paid. 4. (iii) If the period is counted continuously from 01.05.1990 till 23.12.1990, and if the nonworking days are excluded, it may further fall short for 240 days. (iv) The appointment was to end on 31.12.1990, but the termination is made on 23.12.1990. No retrenchment compensation has been paid nor salary from 23.12.1990 to 31.12.1990 was paid. 4. It is, in this light of the aforesaid facts and situation, further consideration of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the Labour Court has been mainly guided by the fact that the termination is made prior to the due date of expiry of the service period upto which the workman was entitled to continue. Therefore, the Labour Court has found that the termination is illegal. However, the important aspect, which has not been properly considered by the Labour Court is that there is no specific discussion as to whether the respondent workman had completed 240 days continuously prior to the termination or not? There is also no discussion by the Labour Court that whether the termination would fall in the category of retrenchment or not? as defined under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act. However, as the respondent-workman came to be terminated 08 days prior to the expiry of period of his engagement, it appears that the Labour Court ought to have directed for payment of lumpsum amount in lieu of reinstatement. Further, as the engagement was to expire in any case after 08 days, the Labour Court has not properly exercised the discretion for awarding of backwages. 5. At this stage, useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, AIR 2009 SC 3004 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at Paras 14 to 17 as under: “14. It would be, thus, seen that by catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 15. Therefore, the view of the High Court that the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement and back wages in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. However, in our view, the High Court erred in not awarding compensation to the appellant while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages. 16. As a matter of fact, in all the judgments of this Court referred to and relied upon by the High Court while upsetting the award of reinstatement and back wages, this Court has awarded compensation. 17. While awarding compensation, the host of factors, inter alia, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service are relevant. Of course, each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances.” 6. Useful reference is also to be made another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, (2010) 4 SCALE 333 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: “9. In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate, (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586 ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 ; State of M.P. and Others Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, AIR 2007 SC 528 ; Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban, (2007) 5 SCALE 397 ; Sita Ram and Others Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, AIR 2008 SC 1955 ; Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and Another, (2006) 9 JT 520 ; Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma, AIR 2007 SC 528 ; Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban, (2007) 5 SCALE 397 ; Sita Ram and Others Vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, AIR 2008 SC 1955 ; Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Ram Sahai and Another, (2006) 9 JT 520 ; Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, (2008) AIRSCW 4738 and Mahboob Deepak Vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and Another, (2007) 14 SCALE 504 . 10. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M. LODHA, J.) in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another (supra), the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated: “7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. * * * * * * * * * * 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee”. 7. It may also recorded that Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before the Court that the market committee shall not raise any dispute if the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the workman. 8. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee”. 7. It may also recorded that Mr. B.S. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before the Court that the market committee shall not raise any dispute if the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the workman. 8. It may be recorded that since the workman has worked only from 01.05.1990 on daily basis upto 23.12.1990 and further, the left out service as per the contractual engagement was more for 08 days only and as the engagement was on daily basis, appropriate compensation can be considered at Rs. 25,000/-. In view of the above observance and discussion, the judgment and award of the Labour Court is modified to the effect that respondent-workman would be entitled to lumpsum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The said amount shall be paid within four weeks from today by the petitioner to the respondent-workman. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.