ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. The only submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that despite having been found to have worked for 240 days in the 12 months immediately preceding 22.03.1996 when the petitioner's services were illegally terminated without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947'), the Labour Court has, instead of reinstating the petitioner, awarded in lieu, compensation only for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. It has been submitted that even though the petitioner in the circumstances can claim that the impugned award dated 16.02.2010 be modified to direct his reinstatement, he would be satisfied if the compensation in lieu of reinstatement as awarded by the Labour Court were to be suitably enhanced to approximately reflect the real loss suffered by the petitioner from the illegality striking at his right to livelihood and its statutory protection thereof. 2. Mr. Ankur Saxena appearing on behalf of Dr. A.S. Khanagarot, Addl. GC submits that the Labour Court having exercised its discretion in awarding Rs.10,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement despite finding contravention of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, this Court should not interfere therewith in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard. Considered. 4. I am of the considered view that petitioner having been denied reinstatement despite his termination in contravention of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 as found by the Trial Court, the alternative relief of compensation should have been substantial and not as it stands in it being limited to a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/-. As a principle, an alternative relief which a Court chooses to grant in its discretion has to be balanced with the other one which could have been granted in law. The question to consider is as to what would be reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement where illegality of termination is found. The facts of a give case would be relevant. In that perspective, the petitioner having worked as a casual worker for about 15 months prior to his illegal termination from which he, aside of monetary loss, also suffered the trauma for sudden loss of livelihood, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate-in the facts of the case-to enhance the compensation to the petitioner in lieu of reinstatement to a sum of Rs.60,000/-. This amount be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after reckoning for any amount, if at all paid so far in the compliance with the award dated 16.02.2010. 5. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.