JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. Award dated 03.03.2008 (Annexure-8) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in I.D. Case No. 8 of 2007 directing reinstatement of the opposite party-workman with full back wages from the date of termination, has been assailed in this writ application. 2. The claim of the workman was that she was appointed as a Sweeper at a consolidated amount under the petitioner-employer. The remuneration of the workman was enhanced to different rates from time to time. She continued to work uninterruptedly under the Management since 1985. But, abruptly on 01.01.2004 the Management terminated her service without assigning any reason, in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The Management traversed the assertions put-forth by the opposite party-workman and contended that the workman was engaged purely as a part time sweeper from 1990 for cleaning the office with a wage of Rs.15/- per month, which was being paid out of the office contingency and therefore, she cannot be characterized as a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. 4. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court found the termination of the workman as illegal being violative of the provision of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and accordingly directed for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. 5. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management submitted that there is no post of sweeper in the office of the petitioner-Management and that the opposite party was engaged only as a part time sweeper, who used to sweep and clean the office for about half an hour a day at a very nominal part time wage, which was being paid out of the office contingency and the opposite party cannot be characterized as a 'workman' within the definition of the term. It is his further submission that even assuming that the opposite party is a workman, she cannot be reinstated with back wages for the reason that there is no post of sweeper in the office of the petitioner and that the office of the petitioner is in bad shape for which the petitioner's activities in the Corporation has been totally sqeezed and that the opposite party being merely a part time sweeper was not rendering duties for the whole day and, therefore instead of reinstatement with back wages, in the alternative some compensation may be paid. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contends that there is no infirmity in the order of the Labour Court, which needs no interference. It is submitted that even assuming that the opposite party was a part time worker, still then she comes within the definition of "workman". 6. It is evident from the award and the record that the opposite party-workman was engaged as a part time daily wager and though there is discrepancy with regard to her initial date of engagement but as per evidence of the Management witnesses, it is apparent that at least since 1990 she was coming for about half an hour in the morning to sweep the office and was doing no other official work. There is some evidence led by the workman that she was also working in the residence of the Sub-Divisional Manager but it is not clearly established that she was doing such work as part of her official duty. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was engaged, even though as a part time sweeper, and worked for about 14 years, it cannot be said that she is not a workman. 7. With regard to the propriety of the direction for reinstatement with fullback wages, it is necessary to take into consideration host of factors, such as, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment etc. It is not in every case of illegal termination that order for reinstatement in service should be passed. 7. With regard to the propriety of the direction for reinstatement with fullback wages, it is necessary to take into consideration host of factors, such as, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment etc. It is not in every case of illegal termination that order for reinstatement in service should be passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board : AIR 2009 SC 3004 have held as follows: "It is true that 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 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 to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice." Further, after referring to several earlier judgments, the Court in paragraph-15 of the judgment held as follows: "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 35-F 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 wages 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. 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. 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. 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." The observations in the aforesaid judgment have been followed in a recent case reported in (2013) 5 SCC 136 : Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh. This Court in the case of Dayanidhi Sahoo v. P.O., Labour Court : 2013 (II) OLR 235 has also followed the decision of the apex Court in Asst. Engineer (supra). 8. Having regard to the principles as laid down above and keeping in view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner was engaged as a part time sweeper and there being no proof of existence of any post of sweeper in the office of the petitioner and keeping in view the manner of appointment and the mode of payment of wages to the opposite party-workman, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to direct reinstatement with full back wages. On the contrary, the workman should get retrenchment compensation. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned award in so far as it directs reinstatement with full back wage and instead direct the petitioner-Management to pay retrenchment compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) to the opposite party-workman within a period of two months. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.