JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The workman, in the present writ petition, challenges the Award dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P-6) whereby, the Labour Court, Bathinda has granted as sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in lieu of the reinstatement. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 and Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, (2011) 6 SCC 584 the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement and merely because the matter was pending adjudication, he should not be denied the fruits of litigation. 2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court is justified and question of reinstatement, at this stage, does not arise. The said conclusion is arrived at in view of the history of litigation inter se the parties and the period of service which the petitioner had rendered. 3. As per the claim, the services of the petitioner were terminated way back on 21.06.1982 i.e. more than 30 years ago and he alleged that he put in two years and two months as a Washer Boy and was drawing Rs. 450/- per month at the time of termination of his service. The defence taken by the respondent-management was that the workman was appointed on purely daily wages at the rates approved by the Deputy Commissioner and he last worked from 15.05.1982 to 20.06.1982. The workman slept over his rights and raised an industrial dispute after 8 years i.e. in the year 1990, when the matter was referred to the Labour Court, which was decided against him on the ground of delay on 12.02.1992. The petitioner filed CWP No. 16433 of 1992, which was decided on 14.08.2013 and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for consideration on merits. Resultantly, the impugned award dated 24.10.2013 has been passed. 4. The Labour Court, after taking into consideration the record, came to the conclusion that the workman had served for 366 days prior to his termination and, therefore, having completed 240 days, held him entitled for compensation in view of the observations of the Apex Court in Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 5. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 5. The judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (supra) were also considered by the Apex Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another v. Gitam Singh (supra) and it was held that the said judgments do not lay down the proposition that in all cases, on wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. The Courts have to keep in mind all relevant factors including the mode and manner of employment, nature of employment, length of service and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before granting any relief. The relevant observations in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another v. Gitam Singh (supra) read thus: 29. In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. 6. In the present case, as noticed above, the employment was way back in the year 1982 and a period of more than 30 years has expired. He had worked only for a period of 366 days and was appointed on daily wages. The question of reinstating the petitioner at this stage thus, has rightly been declined by the Labour Court. Initially, since the issue had not been decided on merits, this Court had remanded the matter back for fresh decision on merits, which exercise has now been carried out. 7. The question of reinstating the petitioner at this stage thus, has rightly been declined by the Labour Court. Initially, since the issue had not been decided on merits, this Court had remanded the matter back for fresh decision on merits, which exercise has now been carried out. 7. The Apex Court in B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal, AIR 2014 SC 1188 in similar circumstances where the person had worked from the year 1987 till 2002 as a daily wager, while discussing the case law on the subject, held that where termination is found to be illegal and where services of the workman are terminated illegally and in unfair manner by way of victimization and unfair labour practice, reinstatement is to be ordered or where daily wage juniors have been retained. The relevant observations read thus: 23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 8. In Hari Nandan Prasad and Another v. Employer I/R to Management of FCI and Another, 2014 (3) JT 415 , the judgment in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another v. Gitam Singh (supra) was again discussed regarding the issue of compensation and it was noticed that 13 years have elapsed since the termination and it would be difficult to give the relief of reinstatement to the persons who are engaged as daily wagers. Reliance was made to the judgment in BSNL v. Bhurumal (supra). 9. In the present case, as noticed, the amount of wages which were earned by the workman in the year 1982 was only Rs. 450/- per month and thus, sum of Rs. Reliance was made to the judgment in BSNL v. Bhurumal (supra). 9. In the present case, as noticed, the amount of wages which were earned by the workman in the year 1982 was only Rs. 450/- per month and thus, sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which has been awarded as compensation, cannot be stated to be not commensurate with the period of service. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 18350 of 2010, Paramjit Singh v. Labour Court, Patiala and Others decided on 05.09.2012 where, reinstatement was directed. In the said judgment, the matter was referred immediately to the Labour Court within the same year when his services were terminated and the Labour Court thereafter directed compensation which was substituted by reinstatement. In the present case, as noticed, there was a delay of 8 years in raising the demand and in Paramjit Singh v. Labour Court, Patiala and Others (supra), the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another v. Gitam Singh (supra) had not been passed at that point of time wherein Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (supra) and Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur (supra) have been relied upon, which now have been explained in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another v. Gitam Singh (supra). In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the well reasoned Award passed by the Labour Court and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.