( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by an ex-employee of the respondent-Municipality under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award of the Labour Court, Rajkot, dated 29. 12. 1990 in Reference (LCR) No. 8791 of 1986.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are to be taken briefly for the purpose of appreciating controvery which has been raised by the parties in this Special Civil Application. The petitioner was appointed as Octroi Clerk on daily-wage basis by the respondent on 10. 7. 1981 and his services were dispensed with on 23. 10. 1985. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The dispute has been referred by the Government under its order dated 11. 4. 1986 for adjudication, to the Labour Court, Rajkot. The Labour Court, Rajkot, found that termination of services of the petitioner was effected in violation of the provisions of sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but reinstatement has been declined and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner by way of notice pay, retrenchment compensation and the amount in lieu of reinstatement. Hence,, this Special Civil Application before this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the termination of services of the petitioner was found to be in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25f of the industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court then it should have passed an order for his reinstatement. It has next been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has violated the provisions of Secs. 25g and 25h of the Industrial Disputes act also in the present case. The respondent has taken many other person in employment after termination of the services of the petitioner and reference in this respect has been made in Sub-para (i) of para-1 of the Special Civil Application. By making reference to the Civil Application No. 8291 of 1996, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that many persons named therein have been given appointment after filing of this Special civil Application. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court given in Special Civil Application No. 6516 of 1990 on 20. 11. 1992, contended that the writ petition deserves to be allowed as in the identical matter reinstatement has been ordered. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Chandraman H. Upadhyaya vs. Rajasthan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Bombay [1988 (5) BLR page 786].

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. R. J. Oza, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Labour Court has given case cogent and convincing reasons for not granting reinstatement to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that even if the order of termination of the petitioner is found to have been made in violation of Sec. 25-F of the I. D. Act, still in the given case while exercising the powers under Sec. 11 (A) of the said Act, the Labour Court could have declined to order for reinstatement of the workmen concerned. He has further contended that reinstatement is not the rule where termination has been found to be illegal by the Labour Court and that the Labour Court has all powers to pass appropriate order in favour of the workman. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that financial position of the respondent-Municipality was not good and that the Collector of Rajkot has specifically directed for not engaging any person as Rojamdar and considering these aspects of the matter the Labour Court has rightly declined to grant reinstatement to the petitioner.

( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsels for the parties. First of all I consider it to be appropriate to make a reference to two Civil applications filed by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application. The first