Hon'ble GREWAL, J.—The writ petition is directed against award of the Labour Court dated 17.5.1996 wherein it was held that the termination of the services of the respondent is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity in service and 25% back wages. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the respondent had filed statement of claim before the Labour Court stating therein that he was appoin-ted with the petitioner Jaipur Development Authority as Class-IV employee in the Wing of the Chief Revenue Officer on 13.6.1988. It was further stated that he had worked satisfactorily but his services were terminated by the petitioner authority on 21.4.1989 without passing any order. It was also stated that new daily wagers were engaged and even his juniors were retained in service. In the reply, the petitioner authority had submitted that the respondent had worked temporarily on daily wages and he was not given any appointment order. It was further stated that he was engaged as daily wage labourer on a days contract which stood automatically terminated after the end of the day. It was denied that he had worked continuously for a period of 240 in a calendar year. It was also stated that he worked for 26 days in December 1988, 25 days in January 1989, 23 days in February, 1989, 22 days in March, 1989 and 14 days in April, 1989 and had thus worked for a total of 110 days. It was stated that there is no sanctioned post of daily wage labourer and casual workers are appointed on a daily contract and as such no seniority list is prepared. It was also stated that the respondent has not given any specific instance of any person junior to him who had been retained with the authority. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent had worked for over a period of 240 days with the petitioner authority. The respondent-claimant had categorically stated in his affidavit that he had worked for over 240 days. He was also cross-examined at length and nothing came forth to suggest that his statement was unbelievable and untrustworthy. The learned tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the respondent had worked for over a period of 240 days with the petitioner authority. The respondent-claimant had categorically stated in his affidavit that he had worked for over 240 days. He was also cross-examined at length and nothing came forth to suggest that his statement was unbelievable and untrustworthy. He had also stated that earlier there was no register for recording the presence of workers but later their presence was being recorded in a register. He had also stated that he had worked with two other persons including Revenue Official Mr. Ram Dhan Jain. His evidence has gone unrebutted inasmuch as no evidence was produced by the petitioner authority before the labour court despite several opportunities in this regard. It is also noticed by the labour court that twice cost was also imposed on the authority for not leading evidence but it was no avail. Neither any register nor any record was produced by the authority before the labour Court to doubt the veracity of the statement of the respondent-workman. 5. Therefore, there does not seem to be any illegality in finding of the labour court that respondent-claimant had made out a case for having worked for 240 days in a year and termination of his service was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is settled law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India will not reappreciate and reexamine the findings of the labour court as a court of appeal. Interference with order of labour court shall be called for only if there is a patent error of law or the findings are perverse. However, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25 per cent back wages would not be sustainable keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, reported as (2009) 15 SCC 327 , wherein it was held: "18. In a case such as this where the total length of service rendered by the appellant was short and intermittent from 1.9.1995 to 18.7.1996 and that he was engaged as a daily wager, in our considered view, a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant by Respondent 1 shall meet the ends of justice. In a case such as this where the total length of service rendered by the appellant was short and intermittent from 1.9.1995 to 18.7.1996 and that he was engaged as a daily wager, in our considered view, a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant by Respondent 1 shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment should be made within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum." 6. This judgment was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan Development Corpn. vs.Gitam Singh reported as (2013) 5 SCC 136 wherein it was held:- "22. From the long line of cases indicated above, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that this Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of this Court that there could be circumstance (s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Therefore, the normal rule that the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. Insofar as wrongful termination of daily-rated workers is concerned, this Court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on host of factors, namely, manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Where the length of engagement as daily wager has not been long, award of reinstatement should not follow and rather compensation should be directed to be paid. A distinction has been drawn between a daily wager and an employee holding the regular post for the purposes of consequential relief." "27. 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. 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. 28. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in BSNL vs. Man Singh. That was a case where the workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984-1985, were terminated without following Sec. 25-F. The industrial dispute was raised after five years and although the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement of the work-men which was not interfered by the High Court, this Court set aside the award of reinstatement and ordered payment of compensation. In paras 4 and 5 of the Report this Court held as under: (SCC p. 559). "4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as `daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice." 29. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as `daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice." 29. In light of the above legal position and having regard to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 1.3.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 1.3.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award dated 28.6.2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs. 50,000 by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum." 7. In the instant case the respondent-workman had been appointed on daily wages. It is not his case that he had been appointed on regular basis after proper selection which had been duly advertised. He had worked only from 13.6.1988 to 21.4.1989 and hence, it would be in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases that the respondent-workman be compensated instead of being reinstated. 8. Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed and instead of reinstatement the respondent shall be paid compensation of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of two months failing which the petitioner shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9 per cent per annum.