ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of award dated 3.11.01 passed by the Labour Court, Udaipur in Labour Dispute Case No. 102/98, whereby while holding the termination of services of the petitioner illegal, he has been awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. It is further ordered that if the amount of compensation is not paid within a period of three months, it will carry interest @ 12%. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the termination of services of the workman being found illegal and void, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages and thus, the Labour Court has seriously erred in denying the relief of reinstatement in service and back wages to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that on termination being found violative of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") the relief of reinstatement must follow as a matter of course. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this court in the matter of Mitha Lal vs. The Judge Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4639/03, decided on 8.11.04, which was declined to be interfered with by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 31.10.06 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1484/06. Learned counsel submitted that even if the award passed by the Labour Court denying the relief of reinstatement is upheld, the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is too meagre which deserves to be enhanced adequately. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a coordinate Bench decision of this court dated 19.3.15 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3074/05. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 4. It is noticed that the dispute with regard to the legality of termination of services of the petitioner was not even referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court vide notification dated 4.9.08. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 4. It is noticed that the dispute with regard to the legality of termination of services of the petitioner was not even referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court vide notification dated 4.9.08. The terms of the reference reads as under: ^^D;k fu;kstd ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh izkjfEHkd f'k{kk ckalokM+k ,oa iz/kkuk/;kid jktdh; mPp izkFkfed'kkyk gdkj dq.M+h ckalokM+k }kjk muds v/khuLFk dk;Zjr Jh ekoth iq= Jh [kqekfu;k dks yxkrkj nks o"kZ ls vf/kd dh lsok ds ckn Hkh fu;fer osru J`a[kyk dk ykHk u nsuk mfpr ,oa oS| gS\ ;fn ugha rks Jfed fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** 5. It is pertinent to note that instead of examining the issue with regard to the petitioner's entitlement for regularisation of his services, the Labour Court proceeded to examine legality of his termination from services. Even in the statement of claim, as noticed by the Labour Court, the petitioner had raised the claim only with regard to his entitlement for regularisation in service. It is well settled that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate the dispute which does not fall within the purview of the dispute actually referred. Thus, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court beyond the terms of reference is apparently erroneous. 6. Further, it is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has arrived at categorical finding that the petitioner was employed only as part time worker and was drawing the salary Rs. 75/- per month. 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, ordinarily, the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages. But then, it is not the law that where the retrenchment of the workman is found illegal, the relief of reinstatement in service with back wages should follow as a matter of course. It is equally well settled that, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the Labour Court exercising its discretion, is not precluded from moulding the relief and grant lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 7. It is equally well settled that, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the Labour Court exercising its discretion, is not precluded from moulding the relief and grant lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 7. In the matter of Sita Ram and Others vs. Moti Lal Nehru Farming Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75 , while determining the issue regarding reinstatement in service, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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. 8. In Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ram Sahai and Another, 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 reinstatement 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, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if instead and in place of reinstatement 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. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if instead and in place of reinstatement 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. State of Rajasthan and Another vs. Ghyan Chand, Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 2006, disposed of on 28th July, 2006.” 9. In Mahboob Deepak vs. Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and Another, (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. 10. In Ghaziabad Development Authority and Another vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, (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 sub-served 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) 11. In Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, (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. 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. xxx xxx xxx 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. xxx xxx xxx 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.” 12. 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.” 12. Similarly, in the matter of Telegraph Department vs. 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 sub-serve 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.” 13. The view taken in the aforesaid decisions has been further followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and Another, 2014 (8) Supreme 353 . 14. In the backdrop of position of law settled by the Apex Court as aforesaid taking into consideration the facts of the present case, where the petitioner was only a part time employee drawing Rs. 75/- per month as wages, served the respondent only for short span of time, the compensation determined by the Labour Court at Rs. 10,000/- in the year 2001, does not warrant any interference by this court more so when, the award passed by the Labour Court is found beyond the terms of reference. 15. In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court referred to here in above, decisions relied upon by the learned counsel does not help the petitioner in any manner. 16. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.