JUDGMENT : This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 13.3.14 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent, questioning the legality of award dated 27.7.98 passed by the Labour Court, Barmer, declaring the termination services of the appellant as illegal and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, has been partly allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court stands modified in terms that the appellant shall be entitled for lump sum compensation a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the retrenchment of the appellant having been found illegal and void, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with consequential benefits and thus, the award passed by the Labour Court was not open to be interfered with by the learned Single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Gauri Shanker v. State of Rajasthan", (2015) 12 SCC 754. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 4. It is true that if a retrenchment of a workman effected without notice and without payment of compensation in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, shall be illegal and void and ordinarily, the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages. But then, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Sita Ram & Ors. v. Moti Lal Nehru Farming Training Institute", (2008) 5 SCC 75 , while determining the issue regarding reinstatement in service, the Industrial Court is required to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it judicially and the relevant factors therefor such as nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of job etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such issue. 5. In "Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai & Anr.", 2007 LAB. I.C. 274, while dealing with the issue with regard to payment of compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in case of violation of Section 25G & H of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "28. should weigh with the court for determination of such issue. 5. In "Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai & Anr.", 2007 LAB. I.C. 274, while dealing with the issue with regard to payment of compensation in lieu of the reinstatement in case of violation of Section 25G & H of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "28. We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that there had been a violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an Award of re-instatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11A must be exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. Respondent had not regularly served Appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services, were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages. We, therfore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if instead and in place of re-instatement of his services, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- is awarded to Respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments. [see State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Ghyan Chand (Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 2006, disposed of on 28th July, 2006.] 6. In 'Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula & Anr.', (2008) 1 SCC 575 , where a workman engaged on daily wages basis, had worked for a short period, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the High Court's judgment is modified by directing payment of Rs. 50,000/- by way of damages to the workman. 7. In "Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.", (2008) 4 SCC 261 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "21. 50,000/- by way of damages to the workman. 7. In "Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr.", (2008) 4 SCC 261 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: "21. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellant should be directed to pay compensation to the first respondent in stead and in place of the relief of reinstatement in service. 22. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent worked for about six years as also the amount of daily wages which he had been getting, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the first respondent. The said sum should be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from date, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) 8. In "Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr.", (2009) 15 SCC 327 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing the change in legal position observed that award of back wages does not follow automatically pursuant to setting aside of the order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25F of the Act. Relying upon various earlier decisions on the issue, the court observed : "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 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 to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. ....xxxxx...... 14. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. ....xxxxx...... 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 25-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 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. ....xxxx.........xxxx. 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 No. 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." 9. In "Incharge Officer & Anr. v. Shanker Shetty", (2010) 9 SCC 126 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while following the decision in Jagbir Singh's case (supra), held: "7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently upto 6-9-1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum." 10. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum." 10. Similarly, in the matter of "Telegraph Department v. Santosh Kumar Seal", (2010) 6 SCC 773 , taking into consideration the position of law settled as aforesaid, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs. 40,000 to each of the workmen (Respondents 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum." 11. The view taken in the aforesaid decisions has been further followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation etc. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & Anr.", 2014 (8) Supreme 353 . 12. In the backdrop of position of law settled by the Apex Court as aforesaid, adverting to the facts of present case, it is to be noticed that the appellant remained in service of the respondent on daily wages basis for a short period of 1 ½ years from 17.12.88 to 6.7.90. The dispute in respect of illegal retrenchment was raised by the appellant was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Barmer for adjudication vide notification dated 30.4.93. The dispute was adjudicated by the Labour Court vide award dated 27.7.98. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, where the appellant had served only for a short period on daily wages basis, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in directing payment of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, taking into consideration the nature of employment and the lapse of time since the workman was retrenched from service, does not warrant any interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction. 13. 13. In the result, the special appeal is dismissed.