JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. The award dated 12.04.1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.421 of 1995 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner (first party-Management before the Tribunal) assails the award, wherein the learned Labour Court while holding the action of the Management (petitioner herein) in terminating the services of the workman (opposite party No.1 herein) to be not legal and justified, directed for his reinstatement in service with continuity and all service benefit, but without back wages. 2. The opposite party No.1 was initially engaged by the petitioner on 03.12.1987 on daily wage basis and subsequently terminated with effect from 15.06.1989. He raised dispute before the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal and by virtue of a tripartite settlement dated 07.01.1992, the opposite party No.1 was reinstated on 23.01.1992 with continuity in service, but without back wages. Subsequently, he was engaged in Choudwar Saw Mill, a unit under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, Dhenkanal (Commercial) Division (for short, ‘the Corporation’). However, he was again terminated on 31.12.1993. Thus, he raised dispute before the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the following terms of reference. “Whether the action of the management i.e., Divisional Manager (C), O.F.D.C. Ltd., Dhenkanal by terminating the services of Sri Ranjit Kumar Mohanty, Ex-Daily rated employee with effect from 31.12.93 is legal and/or justified? If not what relief Sri Mohanty is entitled to?” 3. The petitioner filed its written statement contending inter alia that the workman was engaged purely on temporary daily wage basis. Due to reduction of workload and other administrative inconveniences, the Management had to close down the Choudwar Saw Mill and thereby all daily wage labourers including the opposite party No.1 were terminated. Accordingly, the opposite party No.1 was offered retrenchment compensation vide letter No.5494 dated 31.12.1993, but he did not turn up to receive the same. Thereafter, the amount was sent through money order, but opposite party No.1 refused to accept the same. Thus, the petitioner contended that since the retrenchment was effected observing all formalities, the reference is not maintainable and should be answered against opposite party No.1 (workman). 4. Opposite party No.1 (workman) filed his written statement contending that he was initially engaged by the petitioner on 03.12.1987 and his services was terminated with effect from 15.06.1989. Thus, the petitioner contended that since the retrenchment was effected observing all formalities, the reference is not maintainable and should be answered against opposite party No.1 (workman). 4. Opposite party No.1 (workman) filed his written statement contending that he was initially engaged by the petitioner on 03.12.1987 and his services was terminated with effect from 15.06.1989. He raised dispute before the Labour Commissioner. During conciliation, a tripartite settlement was arrived and the opposite party No.1 was reinstated with all service benefits, but without any back wages. On his reinstatement, he requested the Management for regularization of his service on a number of occasions, but it was not paid any heed. Subsequently, the Management illegally terminated him with effect from 31.12.1993 without complying with provisions of Section 25F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Thus, he raised a dispute before the District Labour Officer, Dhenkanal. On failure of conciliation, a reference has been made by the appropriate Government for adjudication. Hence, he prayed for answering the reference in his favour and to reinstate him in service with full back wages. 5. In order to substantiate their respective case, the petitioner as Management examined two witnesses, whereas the opposite party-workman only examined himself to prove his case. Learned Labour Court considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the materials and evidence available on record came to a conclusion that the termination of the workman (opposite party No.1 herein) with effect from 31.12.1993 is not legal and justified. Thus, he directed for reinstatement of the opposite party No.1 with continuity along with all service benefits, but without any back wage vide award dated 12.04.1999 under Annexure-16. The said award is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Mr.S.K.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously urged that the impugned award was passed on a misconception of law and fact. Learned Labour Court disbelieved the solitary evidence of MW-1 to the effect that retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman and he refused to accept the same, on the plea that it was not corroborated by any other witness. Learned Labour Court disbelieved the solitary evidence of MW-1 to the effect that retrenchment compensation was offered to the workman and he refused to accept the same, on the plea that it was not corroborated by any other witness. Further, there is ample evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the workman was engaged on daily wage basis and due to remarkable reduction of workload and ban order imposed by the Government of Odisha on felling of trees, Saw Mills were closed. Thus, the Management had no other option but to terminate the services of the labourers engaged on daily wage basis and adjust regular employees at other Divisions of the Corporation. Learned Labour Court taking note of the same has refused back wages to the workman. Applying the said principles, learned Labour Court should not have directed to reinstate the workman as it is an unnecessary burden on the Corporation. He further contended that on closure of the Saw Mill at Choudwar, the workman was offered with retrenchment notice along with a sum of Rs.1,125/-on 31.12.1993, but the workman refused to accept the same for which on 01.01.1994, the Management sent the amount along with the notice to the workman through a Peon, but he refused to accept the same. Thus, on 04.01.1994, the notice of retrenchment along with voucher of the compensation amount sent to the workman by registered post, which returned back due to refusal of the workman and subsequently, according to the instruction of the Divisional Manager, Dhenkanal of the Corporation, the compensation amount was sent to the workman by money order on 01.03.1994, but the same also returned back. The retrenchment notice was marked as Ext.A, the registered postal cover was marked as Ext.A/1, letter No.83 dated 29.01.1994 was marked as Ext.B and all other documents were marked without objection. The Management also proved the letter regarding closure of Saw Mill at Choudwar as Ext.E and the list of retrenched daily wage employees was proved as Ext.H. Thus, Mr.Patnaik referring to the aforesaid documents submitted that the Management has made all endeavour to pay the retrenchment compensation before retrenchment of the workman, but due to his non-cooperation and refusal, the same could not be served on him. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Rout Vs. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shyam Sundar Rout Vs. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 69 (1990) CLT 357 and submitted that bona fide endeavour on the part of the employer to pay compensation amount and one month’s salary in lieu of notice along with retrenchment order should be treated as due compliance of Section 25F, where a workman avoids acceptance of compensation with a view to invalidate the order of retrenchment. Though learned Labour Court has taken note of the same, but without applying its judicial mind came to an erroneous conclusion that there is neither any specific material in pleading nor there is any document to show that the notice and compensation amount was offered to the workman on 31.12.1993. Learned Labour Court committed material irregularity in coming to the conclusion that the Management has not adduced any corroborative evidence regarding offer of retrenchment compensation. Thus, the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr.Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 (workman) refuting the contentions of Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate submitted that there is no evidence available on record to come to a conclusion that the order of retrenchment along with compensation was offered to the workman on 31.12.1993. Exhibit-A, i.e., retrenchment notice does not bear any endorsement either of the concerned Officer of the Management or the person who allegedly offered the notice to the workman to the effect that the workman had refused to accept the said notice. Further, the retrenchment compensation was not computed properly. Previously, pursuant to a tripartite settlement, the workman was reinstated with continuity and all service benefits. Thus, the retrenchment compensation ought to have been computed taking into consideration the service of the workman for the previous years. Taking all these illegalities and irregularities into consideration, learned Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of termination and directed for his reinstatement. Further, taking into consideration the closure of the unit, namely, Saw Mill at Choudwar and reduction of workload of the Corporation, the Labour Court has not awarded any back wages, though it has been categorically held that the workman is entitled for continuity with all service benefits. Further, taking into consideration the closure of the unit, namely, Saw Mill at Choudwar and reduction of workload of the Corporation, the Labour Court has not awarded any back wages, though it has been categorically held that the workman is entitled for continuity with all service benefits. The impugned award is a reasonable one and needs no interference in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, it is apparent that Ext.A does not bear any endorsement with regard to refusal of the workman to receive the retrenchment compensation. No witness has been examined in support of the same except MW-1. The petitioner didn’t even examine the Peon, who stated to have offered the order of retrenchment along with compensation to the opposite party No.1. Further, subsequent letters sent through registered post and compensation sent by money order are of no consequence since those are subsequent to the date of termination of the workman. Learned Labour Court has taken into consideration both the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Giving due weight age to the pleadings, contentions raised by the parties as well as materials available on record, he came to a conclusion that the retrenchment of the workman is not legal and justified. There appears no apparent error on the face of record nor is there any material irregularity or infraction of law committed by learned Labour Court in arriving at such a conclusion, which would warrant interference by this Court. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate Court. Thus, the impugned award needs no interference on this score. It is further contented by Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner hardly worked for two years and few months in two phases. He was engaged on daily wage basis. Due to substantial reduction of workload and to minimize the loss of the Corporation, the Saw Mill at Choudwar was closed and thus all daily wage workers including the opposite party No.1 were retrenched. The order of reinstatement of the workman at such a juncture would be prejudicial to the Corporation. He was engaged on daily wage basis. Due to substantial reduction of workload and to minimize the loss of the Corporation, the Saw Mill at Choudwar was closed and thus all daily wage workers including the opposite party No.1 were retrenched. The order of reinstatement of the workman at such a juncture would be prejudicial to the Corporation. The same will also not be beneficial for the workman as he cannot be employed continuously due to substantial reduction of workload and there is every likelihood of unnecessary litigations. Thus, compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be appropriate in the case at hand. Learned Labour Court while granting the relief has not exercised its jurisdiction properly conferred under Section 11-A of the Act. Granting of relief is the discretion of the Court, which must be sound, fair, just and reasonable. There should not be any arbitrariness in exercising the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1, on the other hand, refuting such contention contended that after reduction of workload of the Corporation, 42 surplus Field Assistants being junior to the opposite party No.1, were transferred to other Divisions but the services of opposite party No.1 was dispensed with. Thus, compensation in lieu of reinstatement is not appropriate in this case and the opposite party No.1 should be reinstated in service as directed by learned Labour Court. 9. Scrutiny of the case record reveals that the opposite party No.1 had made an allegation to the effect that some of the workmen who were junior to the opposite party No.1 have been retained and transferred by the Management. A copy of the list of such workmen was supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction of this Court on 25.02.2015, an affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 24.03.2015 stating that the list of the workmen submitted by the opposite party No.1 along with letter dated 22.01.2008, in which surplus Field Assistants of Bhubaneswar Commercial Zone were transferred to other Divisions and adjusted accordingly, are the regular Field Assistants of the Corporation, whereas opposite party No.1 was engaged as a daily wage labourer. Moreover, all the 42 Field Assistants were engaged in the Corporation prior to 31.03.1986, which is much before the initial engagement of the opposite party No.1 on 03.12.1987. Moreover, all the 42 Field Assistants were engaged in the Corporation prior to 31.03.1986, which is much before the initial engagement of the opposite party No.1 on 03.12.1987. Thus, the claim of Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 does not appear to be correct. Admittedly, the unit, namely, Saw Mill at Choudwar of the Corporation has been closed since 1993 and there can be no quarrel to the fact that the Corporation in order to right-size the strength of the workmen to minimize the loss had floated Schemes like Voluntary Retirement /Compulsory Retirement for regular employees and termination of the daily wage workers was resorted to wherever their services was felt not necessary. In such circumstances, direction for reinstatement of the opposite party No.1 will certainly create burden on the Corporation as well as lead to further complicacy and further litigations which is not beneficial either for the Management or for the workman. Learned Court below while exercising its power under Section 11-A of the Act, didn’t delve into this material aspect of the case. Certainly, exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act, while granting relief to a workman, is discretionary, which must be sound, fair, just and reasonable. There is no straight jacket formula to grant relief by the Labour Court or Tribunal in exercise of power under Section 11-A of the Act. The Court/Tribunal should grant relief taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case, in order to meet the ends of justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd vs. Empkoyees Of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80 held as under:- “11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the Rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular.” 10. In the past, the Courts have laid down law to the effect that where the termination of an employee was declared to be illegal, the consequential relief of reinstatement with full back wages was being granted. However, in recent days, there has been shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently taken view that the relief by way of reinstatement is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation, even though termination of an employee is in violation of the prescribed procedure. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement in those cases has been held to meet the ends of justice. In the case of Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 327 , Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, held as under:- “7. 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. xx xx xx 15. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. xx xx xx 15. 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. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee.” 11. Mr.Mohanty, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the decisions in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs.BSNL and another, reported in AIR 2015 SC 357 and also the case of Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 (145) FLR 671, wherein, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held that the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction should not have modified the award by directing payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Mr.Mohanty also relied upon some other case laws, such as 99 (1990) CLT 357; 1985 Lab.IC 1733; 2010 (1) SCC (L & S) 1146; AIR 2010 SC 683 AND (2015) 4 SCC 458 . In all these cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the termination, dismissal or discharge etc. of a workman is set aside, the workman is entitled to be restored to the position just before the order of termination, dismissal or discharge etc., as the case may be, was passed. There can be no denial to the principle, as aforesaid, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But, it is not automatic and reinstatement, in all circumstances, is not possible and practicable to be granted. It depends upon the given fact and circumstance of each case. 12. In view of the discussions made above, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, we find force in the submission of Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate to the effect that compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In view of the discussions made above, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, we find force in the submission of Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate to the effect that compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is also long line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court supporting this view. Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: (i) AIR 2010 SC 2140 (ii) JT 2013 (2) SC 231 (iii) AIR 2009 SC 3004 This Court in a decision in the case of Dayanidhi Sahu Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur and others, reported in 2013 (II) OLR 235 has also taken a similar view. In paragraph-8, of the said Dayanidhi Sahoo’s case (supra), it is held as follows:- “8. The apex Court in the case of Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corp. and Anr. v. Gitam Singh reported in 2013 LLR 225 has held that when the termination of a workman is held illegal. It can be said without any fear of contradiction that the Supreme Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in case of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of the Court that there could be circumstances in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Hence, the normal rule that the dismissed workman is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. The principles as relevant for granting relief of reinstatement when termination of workman is held to be illegal. Before exercising his 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. Now there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back-wages, and instead the Labour Court can award compensation. Now there is no such principle that for an illegal termination of service, the normal rule is reinstatement with back-wages, and instead the Labour Court can award compensation. The apex Court further held that the compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, should have been proper to a daily wager who has completed merely 240 days’ service hence the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court also erred in not considering that the reinstatement with back-wages is no longer a rule without exceptions. While granting a relief of reinstatement to a workman whose termination is held to be illegal i.e. violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 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.” (emphasis supplied ) 13. Thus, this Court is of the view that the view that compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. As it is borne out from record, opposite party No.1 had practically worked for two years and few months in two phases between 1987 and 1993. He was a daily wage labourer. The unit in which he was working has already been closed. In view of the ban imposed on felling of trees the Corporation has closed down several Saw Mills and Commercial units for reduction of workload. Further, in order to right-size the strength of the employees, it has floated different Schemes like VRS/CRS for regular employees and also in some cases termination of the daily wage workers was resorted to retrench the casual / daily wage workmen, wherever their services was felt not necessary. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakh in lieu of reinstatement would be just and proper. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh (rupees two lakh) only to the opposite party No.1-workman within a period of six months from today in lieu of reinstatement. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction modifying the impugned award to the extent indicated above.