JUDGMENT : Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. 1. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya Ko Appeal Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order dated 16.5.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 845/2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been disposed of. 2. The impugned order dated 16.5.2019 passed by learned Writ Court reads as under:- “2. Challenge is to an Award dated 23/06/2015 (declared on 08/09/2015) passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court in the Industrial Dispute Reference Case No.CGIT/LC/R/59/06. The Tribunal was in seisin with the dispute as to “whether the action of the management of Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Locoshed Narrow Guage, Central Railway, Gwalior and Varishta Mandal, Yantrik Abiyanat, Central Railway, Jhansi in terminating the services of Shri Ram Prakash w.e.f. 1-2-99 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?” 3. The Tribunal on the findings that the workman was engaged as a part-time Sweeper for the period from 21/06/1997 to 01/02/1999 in place of his uncle and his services with the management was required to be dispensed with because of the closure of narrow gauge between Gwalior to Bhind, though held that the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1947”) was violated; however, instead of directing reinstatement, ordered for grant of compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) in lieu thereof. 4. Though an exception is taken to the Award that the Tribunal erred in not following the general rule of reinstatement when the retrenchment is found to be illegal. Reliance is placed on the decision by the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. the Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.:[ (1979) 2 SCC 80 ] and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) reinstatement. 5. True it is that in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works (supra) and Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) and even various cases decided by this Court, the general rule of reinstatement, with or without backwages has been propounded in case where the retrenchment is found to be illegal. 5. True it is that in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works (supra) and Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) and even various cases decided by this Court, the general rule of reinstatement, with or without backwages has been propounded in case where the retrenchment is found to be illegal. However, the facts of this case are totally & Ors.: [( 2013 ) 10 SCC 324] wherein general rule in case of illegal retrenchment has been held to be different than the facts in the cases relied upon by the petitioner wherein, long years of continuous service were found to be dispensed with the de hors the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Whereas, in the case at hand, as evident from the facts that the petitioner was not a regular causal Labour, nor was he engaged on full time basis, but was part time Sweeper and the services were required to be dispensed with because of closure narrow gauge. 6. In State of M.P. Vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari:[ (2016) 16 SCC 610 ] in somewhat similar fact situation, it is held: “3. Time and again, this Court has reiterated that reinstatement is not automatic upon a finding that retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, this Court while issuing notice has taken note of our earlier decision in Jagbir Singh vs. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board:[ (2009) 15 SCC 327 ]. 4. In the present case, neither the Labour Court nor the High Court has given any special reason why the workman should be reinstated. Having perused the material on record that the workman was employed as a daily wager and had rendered service from 1-7-1997 to 31-7-1999 i.e. about two years and having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the grant of reinstatement was not proportionate and therefore incorrect and the ends of justice would be met in the present case by granting retrenchment compensation. 5. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court insofar as the reinstatement is concerned and direct that the appellants shall pay retrenchment compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of a copy of this order.” 7. 5. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court insofar as the reinstatement is concerned and direct that the appellants shall pay retrenchment compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of a copy of this order.” 7. In view whereof, the direction for grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the given facts of present case cannot be faulted with. However, the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement appears to be on lower side. And though there is no fixed parameter for arriving at just compensation. However, taking into consideration the entire facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) including amount of Rs.20,000/-awarded would meet the end of justice. 8. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.” 3. The appellant has pleaded that he was initially appointed in the respondent-department as Part-time Sweeper w.e.f. 21.6.1997 in the Loco Shed, Narrow Gauge, Central Railway, Gwalior. He worked continuously till 31.1.1999. By order dated 1.2.1999 services of the appellant were terminated by the respondent-Assistant Mechanical Engineer on the ground that Gwalior to Bhind Railway line has been closed. The aforesaid fact was neither established nor correct. It was further pleaded that the correct fact was that after closing narrow gauge a broad gauge line has been started from Gwalior to Bhind and thus the nature of work of the appellant has been increased. After terminating services of the appellant the respondent had engaged some other employee in place of appellant and it is clear violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The work of appellant was quite satisfactory and a certificate was also issued in this regard. Hence, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of with grant of liberty to approach Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court vide order dated 22.9.1999. The appellant raised the matter before competent authority, as stated above. The competent authority while observing that termination of services of appellant is illegal granted Rs.20,000/-only. Hence the appellant filed writ petition No. 845/2016. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the termination of appellant's services is illegal and against provisions of law. The appellant raised the matter before competent authority, as stated above. The competent authority while observing that termination of services of appellant is illegal granted Rs.20,000/-only. Hence the appellant filed writ petition No. 845/2016. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the termination of appellant's services is illegal and against provisions of law. The fact was not considered and Gwalior-Bhind railway line was not closed, rather process was started to convert narrow gauge line into broad gauge line, therefore the work assigned to the appellant was in continuation. 5. Grounds taken by the appellant are that denial of reinstatement of the appellant is perverse and is not sustainable in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that though CGIT and Writ Court have found termination of the appellant's services illegal but at the same time it has not been considered that the nature of work assigned to the appellant was in continuation. The mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have not been followed and the order passed by CGIT is beyond jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to set aside the orders passed by learned Writ Court and CGIT. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of writ appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Learned Writ Court vide impugned order disposed of the writ petition in following manner :- “7. In view whereof, the direction for grant of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the given facts of present case cannot be faulted with. However, the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement appears to be on lower side. And though there is no fixed parameter for arriving at just compensation. However, taking into consideration the entire facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac) including amount of Rs.20,000/-awarded would meet the end of justice.” 9. Learned Writ Court has passed the aforesaid order by discussing the matter at length. Learned Writ Court has correctly observed that in the case at hand, as evident from the facts that the petitioner/appellant was not a regular casual labour nor was engaged on full-time basis but was part time Sweeper and his services were required to be dispensed with because of closure of narrow gauge. Learned Writ Court has correctly observed that in the case at hand, as evident from the facts that the petitioner/appellant was not a regular casual labour nor was engaged on full-time basis but was part time Sweeper and his services were required to be dispensed with because of closure of narrow gauge. Thereafter by considering the observation made by Apex Court in State of MP vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari [ (2016) 16 SCC 610 ] learned Writ Court has arrived at the finding as mentioned in para 7 of the impugned order and petition of the appellant has been rejected. The fact that the appellant was not a regular casual labour is undisputed. Hence, learned Writ Court has not committed any error in giving its finding which does not call for any interference. 10. Resultantly, the writ appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed.