JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner challenges the award passed by the Labour Court No.2, Jaipur dated 31st May, 2012 whereby termination of services of the respondent-workman has been held as illegal and unjustified and the respondent-workman has been directed to be reinstated in service without any back wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman had worked for a period from 01/02/1994 to 19/02/1999 as per his statement and as per the findings given by the Labour Court. He submits that while the reference was made in 2007, the award has been passed in 2012 and after so many years, the respondent-workman ought not to have been reinstated in service and instead thereof compensation could have been awarded to him as has been directed to the Apex Court in several cases namely; in the case of Vikash Adhikari & Anr. Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr.:2007(1) WLC (Raj.) 474; Vice- Chancellor Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs Akhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr. (Civil Special Appeal No. 5731 of 2011) decided on 08/09/2015 and in the case of Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Judge, Labour Court No.I, Jaipur & ors. {D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.751/06], decided on 02/03/2017 3. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the respondent-workman had immediately raised the dispute by filing the writ petition before this Court in the year 1999 itself when his services were dispensed with and it is only after the objection was raised by the respondents therein, namely the petitioner herein, that the respondent-workman withdrew his writ petition on 19/01/2016 and raised the dispute before the Labour Court and thus he has been continuously following up the matter. 4. It is further stated that the respondent-workman had worked continuously for a period from 1994 to 1999 i.e. for almost five years as has been noted by the Labour Court. It is further submitted that the Labour Court while examining the issue relating to back wages and reinstatement has denied back wages to the petitioner in total and has merely reinstated him in service with continuity of service. No fault can be attributed to the order passed by the Labour Court and no interference is called for. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. No fault can be attributed to the order passed by the Labour Court and no interference is called for. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Director of Education and others: (2016)6 SCC 541 wherein the Apex Court while discussing the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25 as well as the question regarding grant of compensation or reinstatement has reached to a conclusion as under:- “56.. The termination of the appellant is bad in law for noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act and also Section 8(2) of the DSE Act. Further, the respondent-School has not produced any evidence on record to show that the retrenchment of the appellant was necessary as he had become ‘surplus’. The termination of the appellant was ordered in the year 2003 and he is unemployed till date. The respondents have been unable to produce any evidence to show that he was gainfully employed during that period and therefore he is entitled to back wages and other consequential benefits in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyala (D.ED.)& Ors.wherein it was held as under: (SCC p.344, para 22) “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 5. It is stated that in the said judgment even back wages were directed to be paid. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case of Jasmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2015)4 SCC 458 where too after findings that there has been noncompliance of the statutory provisions, relief of the reinstatement was granted. 7. Having heard counsel for both the parties, I find that there have been two views of the Apex Court relating to the relief part. After the Court reaches to a conclusion there has been noncompliance of the statutory provisions under the Act of 1947, in some cases, compensation has been awarded while in other cases reinstatement has been directed as noted (supra). 8. A look at the provisions of the Act of 1947, clearly shows that the said Act was framed with the sole purpose to protect the workman from exploitation in the hands of the management. The concept of the awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement is completely foreign to the Act of 1947. 8. A look at the provisions of the Act of 1947, clearly shows that the said Act was framed with the sole purpose to protect the workman from exploitation in the hands of the management. The concept of the awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement is completely foreign to the Act of 1947. It is at the stage of reinstatement itself that the amount has to be paid which has been held to be mandatory and non-compliance of the statutory provisions of the Act of 1947 would result any retrenchment being illegal. In the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, once the Court reaches to a conclusion that there has been a noncompliance of the provisions of the Act of 1947 with regard to the terminating service of workman, reinstatement is the rule and compensation is only as an exception which can be only awarded taking into consideration if a person has worked only for a few days; that too there has to be a criteria laid down for awarding compensation. It has to be either on the basis of total amount of wages which he may be entitled for the intervening period or some other yardstick relating to the service which the workman would have rendered with the concerned management/employer. 9. Since there is no reasonable yardstick laid down the Apex Court or by this Court, this Court refrains from entering into a vague arena of awarding compensation in an arbitrary manner and the safe course which can be adopted by this Court would be only reinstatement. Of course, the question of back wages can be decided from one case to another taking into consideration the delay in deciding a case or circumstances where a person may be working at some place or in circumstances where the dispute has been taken up after a considerable delay. Thus, circumstances can be relevant for deciding back wages part. However, this Court is of the view that paying compensation to a workman without lying down any specific parameters would be nothing but an Act of doling out money to a workman without there being any specific criteria. There is always a room of arbitrariness in such matters and therefore, this Court holds that the workman has been rightly reinstated in service without granting any back wages. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merits accordingly dismissed. There is always a room of arbitrariness in such matters and therefore, this Court holds that the workman has been rightly reinstated in service without granting any back wages. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merits accordingly dismissed. The compliance of the award of the Labour Court be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified of this order.