JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
2. The appellant has raised an Industrial dispute about his alleged termination of service from February, 1992. He was working as daily rated workman since 1.4.1991. His wages were Rs. 22/- per day. Initial orders of appointment were in writing. However after November, 1991 to February, 1992 no written orders were there and he was asked verbally to work. The services were also terminated verbally from March, 1992 without following the procedure required for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has completed continuous service of one year within the meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and he was entitled to benefit of protective provisions governing the valid retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents in their reply to the claim admitted that the workman has worked as daily rated for 183 days from 1.4.1991 to 30.9.1991 and thereafter he had voluntarily left his services and did not work until February, 1992 as alleged. The allegations of verbal engagement and verbal terminations were denied and case of voluntary abandonment was pleaded. Thus the claim for actual working for 240 days in twelve, calendar months immediately preceding the alleged date of retrenchment was not accepted.
3. Labour Court found on the basis of order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for making payment of wages until February, 1992 that the workman has actually worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. Consequently the theory of abandonments was not accepted in consonance with the finding. When admittedly no procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for valid retrenchment was followed, termination was found to be invalid. However the Labour Court found that it is a case in which reinstatement was not an appropriate remedy, instead it allowed compensation in lieu of reinstatement for illegal termination. The reasons that weighed with the Labour Court were that workman had agreed in his own statement that during this period when he was not in employment of the respondent, he is earning Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per day; whereas until May, 1998 for some period daily rate of wages were Rs. 32/- per day and from May, 1998 the wages for daily rated workmen were only Rs. 44/- per day. In these circumstances the Tribunal found that applicant had earned atleast twice the amount what he could have earned while remaining in service. Thus financially the termination of service has not resulted in loss. The Tribunal also found that there is no work with the respondent presently where workman could be reinstated. He has worked as daily rated workman since 1992 and could have been reinstated as daily rated workman only. As per the Government order, the employment of daily rated basis under the respondent is wholly abandoned. Along with these two primary considerations, considering the distance of time between the date of termination and date of the award along with the nature of employment in which workman was engaged at the time of termination of service and the status to which he could return, it was considered appropriate that compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be just award. It has given cogent reasons for computing compensation by considering the total loss of back wages which could have been awarded even according to his own statement determining the amount of Rs. 12,500/- for losing service after the employment on causal basis.
4. In the totality of circumstances we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that it is not a case in which Court ought to interfere with the award of Tribunal by way of judicial review in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
5. Accordingly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.