JUDGMENT : 1. Present is petition No. 8501 of 2013 filed under Article 226 and 227, Constitution of India, 1950, where petitioner has challenged award dt. 25.07.2012 passed by Ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference CGITA No. 158 of 2004 vide which his reference came to be partly dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a casual worker, who came to be appointed on 29.04.1993 on daily wage rated basis at Talaja Main Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar for doing work of temprary nature as and when available. In the year 1997 on 11.12.1997, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated orally and without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation or conducting inquiry. Aggrieved with the said oral termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred before the Ld. Tribunal being Reference (ITC) No. 42 of 1999 seeking reinstatement on his original post with continuity and full back wages. An award came to be passed on 25.07.2012, partly allowing reference by awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of relief sought by him. Aggrieved with the said award, the petitioner is before this Hon'ble Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29.04.1993, he came to be appointed as peon in Talaja Main Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar. He discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty and his service record was also clean and blotless. However, on 11.12.1997 his services came to be terminated orally by the respondent bank. 4. During the period of his service, he worked in 1993 for 98 days, in 1994 for 223 days, in 1995 for 275 days, in 1996 for 281 days and in 1997 for 270 days, meaning, he continuously worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year from 1995 to 1997. As he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in 1996 viz. preceding to the year 1997, it was necessary for respondent to comply with S. 25F of ID Act before terminating his services. 5. However, in complete disregard thereof, service of petitioner came to be terminated orally on dt. 11.12.1997. Hence, aggrieved with the unlawful and illegal termination, petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred before the Ld. preceding to the year 1997, it was necessary for respondent to comply with S. 25F of ID Act before terminating his services. 5. However, in complete disregard thereof, service of petitioner came to be terminated orally on dt. 11.12.1997. Hence, aggrieved with the unlawful and illegal termination, petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which came to be referred before the Ld. Tribunal as Reference (ITC) No. 42 of 1999 and was allowed partly by an award dt. 25.07.2012. 6. The respondent has contested the petition by filing Affidavit-in-reply. As per the case of the respondent, petitioner was never appointed as a peon on daily wage basis by the respondent, rather he was appointed as casual labour on temporary daily rated basis for doing temporary work available for the duration during which the permanent employees were on leave. 7. Further, the respondent is also in denial that petitioner has ever worked continuously. It is also denied that he has worked in year the 1993 for 98 days, in 1994 for 223 days, in 1995 for 275 days, in 1996 for 281 days, in 1997 for 270 days. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner is based on his own statement, which is not even authenticated by the concerned officer of the respondent bank. Rather, he worked intermittently for the period from 1993 to 1997. Accordingly, he worked in the year 1994 for 222 days, in 1995 for 196 days, in 1996 for 264 days, in 1997 for 56 days. 8. Hence, as the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement of Section 25B of ID Act, compliance with S. 25F and question of illegal termination of petitioner's services does not arise at all. 9. Besides, before the Ld. Tribunal, the petitioner has failed to prove that, he has continuously worked for 240 days in 1996 viz. preceding to year 1997, in which his services came to be terminated and also that there is any violation of Section 25F of ID Act by the respondent. 10. Mr. D.G. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has committed error in its findings by not considering Circular dt. 08.06.1998 issued by the respondent bank for conducting an interview to absorb temporary subordinate staff into permanent staff and against which an application dt. 22.07.1998 was also made by the petitioner. 10. Mr. D.G. Shukla, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has committed error in its findings by not considering Circular dt. 08.06.1998 issued by the respondent bank for conducting an interview to absorb temporary subordinate staff into permanent staff and against which an application dt. 22.07.1998 was also made by the petitioner. Hence, when permanent posts were lying vacant and application was also being made a permanent employee, the petitioner was ought to be made so and should not have been terminated from services. 11. Further, it was also submitted that Ld. Tribunal has held that in cases where retrenchment compensation or notice pay, as per S. 25F of ID Act is not given by employer to the employee, no reinstatement with back-wages can be granted, but since petitioner has continuously worked for 240 days in the year 1996, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was granted. However, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid finding on the ground that since Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a beneficial legislation and strict compliance with it is mandatory, finding of the Ld. Tribunal is illegal and needs to be quashed. 12. In support of his arguments, he placed his reliance upon Ajaypal Singh vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, 2015 (6) SCC 321 :- [21] Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stipulates conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. A workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer is entitled to benefit under said provision if the employer retrenches workman. Such a workman cannot be retrenched until he/she is given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice apart from compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. It also mandates the employer to serve a notice in the prescribed manner on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. If any part of the provisions of Section 25F is violated and the employer thereby, resorts to unfair trade practice with the object to deprive the workman with the privilege as provided under the Act, the employer cannot justify such an action by taking a plea that the initial appointment of the employee was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid case, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel that when employer has terminated service of worker in violation of S. 25F, reinstatement in service with back-wages has to be granted. 14. Mr. Nagesh C. Sood, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has seriously contested the present petition. It is his submission that petitioner was never appointed by the respondent as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and Regulations for appointment of employees in respondent's bank. He has also not appeared either in written test or in interview required for appointment of regular employees. Hence, petitioner's appointment was purely on need basis and his services were availed only when permanent employees were on leave. 15. Further, it was also submitted that petitioner has himself admitted before the Ld. Tribunal that he does not have documentary evidence to prove that he was appointed on permanent vacant post of a peon. Instead, he has conceded that he was engaged by the respondent on daily rated basis and performed his duties in place of permanent employees as and when they were on leave. 16. It is also submitted that Ld. Tribunal has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by respondent and deposition of the Branch Manager, which clearly disproved claim of the petitioner that he has worked for 240 days in each calender year. Hence, Ld. Tribunal has decided the reference wrongly without properly appreciating evidences. 17. In support of his arguments he has placed his reliance upon Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. Hence, Ld. Tribunal has decided the reference wrongly without properly appreciating evidences. 17. In support of his arguments he has placed his reliance upon Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors. vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and Anr., (2014) 16 SCC 130 :- [8] It is fairly well-settled that for an order of termination of the services of a workman to\be held illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the workman to establish that he was in continuous service of the employer within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the respondent to succeed in that attempt he was required to show that he was in service for 240 days in terms of Section 25B(2)(a)(ii). The burden to prove that he was in actual and continuous service of the employer for the said period lay squarely on the workman. 18. I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels. The petitioner before the Court is aggrieved with the award dt. 25.07.2012 passed by Ld. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmadabad in Reference CGITA No. 158 of 2004, in which compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded in lieu of reinstatement into the service with back-wages. 19. As per the petitioner's case, on 29.04.1993 he was appointed as peon in Talaja Main Branch of State Bank of Saurashtra, Bhavnagar. He was rendering his services diligently and honestly. On 11.12.1997 his services came to be orally terminated by the respondent bank. As per S. 25B under the Act, continuous service means, a worker who has worked for continuous period of 240 days in each calendar year. And as the present petitioner has worked so, termination of his service is in violation of S. 25F of ID Act. Accordingly, he is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back-wages. It is also his case, that respondent has issued a Circular dt. 08.06.1998 for conducting an interview to absorb temporary subordinate staff into permanent staff, against which application dt. 22.07.1998 was also made by the him. Hence, when permanent posts were lying vacant, petitioner was ought to be appointed on such posts. 20. On the contrary, as per the case of the respondent bank, petitioner was only appointed as casual labour on daily wage rated basis for doing temporary work as and when available. 22.07.1998 was also made by the him. Hence, when permanent posts were lying vacant, petitioner was ought to be appointed on such posts. 20. On the contrary, as per the case of the respondent bank, petitioner was only appointed as casual labour on daily wage rated basis for doing temporary work as and when available. The respondent has also denied that petitioner has continuously worked for 240 days in each calendar year from 1995 to 1997. Therefore, issue of complying with S. 25F by the respondent does not arise at all, especially when the petitioner has himself failed to prove that there is breach of S. 25F before the Ld. Tribunal. Besides, for appointment of subordinate staff, a person has to undergo some appointment procedure such as written exam or interview, which is not a case with the petitioner. Also, he himself has admitted before the Ld. Tribunal that he does not have any appointment letter issued by the respondent. 21. It is also not in dispute that for appointment of subordinate staff in respondent bank, recruitment process is conducted by Banking Service Recruitment Board. Besides, powers are also conferred upon the bank to engage causal workers on daily rated wage basis for doing work available on temporary basis and there are no recruitment Rules for casual workers. They are neither given appointment letter nor termination order. 22. Before Ld. Tribunal, the petitioner has produced evidence showing that he has worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year from 1995 to 1997, although the document is not certified by the respondent bank. Similarly, respondent bank has also produced a document before the Ld. Tribunal showing number of days worked by the petitioner in each calendar year from 1993 to 1997. On bare perusal of the award, it is apparent that after proper scrutiny of the evidence, Ld. Tribunal has come to a finding that petitioner has continuously worked for 240 days only in the year 1996. As the said finding is arrived at after proper scrutiny of the documents adduced, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere with the said finding. 23. Petitioner was appointed as causal worker on daily wage rated basis for doing work of temporary nature as and when available with the bank. On 11.12.1997, by an oral order his services came to be terminated. 23. Petitioner was appointed as causal worker on daily wage rated basis for doing work of temporary nature as and when available with the bank. On 11.12.1997, by an oral order his services came to be terminated. Because he has continuously worked for more than 240 days (264 days) in the year 1996 viz. preceding to the year 1997 in which his services came to be terminated, I am of the view that it was imperative for the respondent bank to comply with S. 25F of ID Act before terminating services of the petitioner. 24. Now, the general rule is that, when there is wrongful dismissal from services, reinstatement in service with back-wages is the only remedy. However, there are catena of judgments, which have departed from this rule. 25. In Municipal Council, Sujanpur vs. Surinder Kumar, (2006) 5 SCC 173 , the court arrived at the conclusion that service of the worker was in violation of S. 25F of the ID Act. However, award granting reinstatement in service with backwages was set aside and a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded. 26. In Telegraph Deptt. vs. Santosh Kumar Seal, (2010) 6 SCC 773 , a workmen were engaged as daily wager around 25 year ago and he had barely worked for 2 or 3 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in such cases, reinstatement in service with back waes does not appear to be justified, rather monetary compensation would met the ends of justice and accordingly lumpsum compensation of Rs. 40,000/- was awarded to each worker. 27. In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Anr. vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 , petitioner was daily wager, who had worked only for 8 months in the year 1991. Hence, the Hon'ble Court set aside award for reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages and in interest of justice granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 28. In view of the principle well established through numerous case laws, it is apparent that even in cases of wrongful dismissal from services, reinstatement with back-wages is not the only relief which has to be always granted. Generally, in such cases, numerous factors have to be weighted such as manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Accordingly, in cases where length of service is not long enough, compensation and not reinstatement is adequate relief. 29. Generally, in such cases, numerous factors have to be weighted such as manner and method of appointment, nature of employment and length of service. Accordingly, in cases where length of service is not long enough, compensation and not reinstatement is adequate relief. 29. Similarly, present is also a case where petitioner was appointed as a causal worker on daily wage rated basis. He has not undergone any recruitment process such as competitive exam or interview. The nature of his work was temporary in nature. The duration of his service is also only of 5 years from 1993 to 1997, during which he has worked intermittently and in phased manner. Also it is only in the year 1996, in which he has worked for more than 240 days. Service of the petitioner was terminated in the year 1997 and presently we are in 2018. In the interest of justice, considering factors aforesaid and also that there is gap of 21 years, I am of the opinion that compensation and not reinstatement with backwages would be adequate relief. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present petition being SCA No.8501 of 2013 is partly allowed. Petitioner's claim for reinstatement in service with back-wages is declined but alternative prayer for enhancement of compensation is allowed by increasing the amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Payment be made within six weeks from the date of receiving this Order, failing which same will carry interest @ 9% per annum. Cross-Petition being SCA No.14098 of 2013 preferred by the Bank stands disposed of. Rule accordingly.