Summarize the following court judgment. CIVIL Appeal NO. 650 of 1982. From the Award dated 6.3 1981 of the Labour Court Delhi in IClD No. 41 Or 1979. P.N. Tewari and S.R. Srivastava for the Appellants. 25F read with Sec. 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act 	 1947 ( 'Act ' for short) and as the provisions of Sec. 25F have not been complied with 	 the termination of service would be bad and illegal. The Labour Court then proceeded to examine whether the relief of reinstatement should be granted or compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be given. The Labour Court held that 'even where Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not complied with and therefore the termination of service is illegal and invalid 	 there is certainly a discretion with the Labour Court whether to order reinstatement of the workman or not. ' We have our serious reservations about the statement of law but it is not necessary to deal with it in the present case because instead of granting reinstatement 	 we propose to award adequate compensation taking into account both the backwages as well as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court while proceeding to quantify the compensation observed that 'the termination of services of the two workmen was bonafide and not a colorable exercise of power in accordance with the service rules and then proceeded to award one year 's wages as compensation ' for the failure of the employer to comply with the requirements of provisions contained in Sec. 25F of the Act. The workmen have filed this appeal by special leave. Ordinarily where the termination of service is found to be 626 bad and illegal 	 in the field of industrial relations a declaration follows that the workman continues to be in service and has to be reinstated in service with full backwages (See Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.(1). The Labour Court has 	 however 	 the discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement if the circumstances of a particular case are unusual or exceptional so as to make reinstatement in expedient or improper.(See M/s Hindustan Steels Ltd. 	 Rourkela vs A.K. Roy & Ors.(2). In the present case 	 the Labour Court having held that the termination of services of the appellants would constitute retrenchment and as the pre requisite for a valid retrenchment having not been satisfied 	 the termination of service was bad 	 yet in the facts of the case in his discretion declined to grant the relief of reinstatement. Whenever 	 it is said that something has to be done within the discretion of the authority then that something has to be done according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion 	 according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary 	 vague and fanciful but legal and regular and it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest men to the discharge of his office ought to find himself. (See Sharp vs Wekfield(3). Discretion means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by 	 rule 	 not by humour 	 it must not be arbitrary 	 vague and fanciful. (See S.D. Jaisinghani vs Union of India & Ors.(4). The Labour Court while declining to grant the relief of reinstatement which should have ordinarily followed 	 consequent upon its finding that the termination of service was bad and illegal 	 in exercise of its discretion awarded one year 's wages as compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the ground that 'the termination of service of each of the appellant was bonafide and not a colorable exercise of power in accordance with service rules. ' There is thus an error apparent on the face of the record of the case in as much as if the termination of service was according to service (1) ; (2) ; (3) 11891] A.C. 173. (4) 11967] 2 S.C.R. 703 	 627 rules and Was bonafide it could not be simultaneously held to be illegal and invalid. Therefore the discretion was exercised on irrelevant and extraneous considerations or considerations not germane to the determination. As a necessary corollary 	 we would have granted the normal relief of reinstatement. Dr. Chitley 	 learned counsel who appeared for the respondents attempted to take us through the evidence with a view to persuading us that the employer even if it acted contrary to law 	 should not be burdened with reinstatement because it had lost confidence in the appellants. The employer is a foreign air transport company. The workmen were loaders posted at Delhi Airport. In this far fetched hierarchical relationship 	 loss of confidence if it is to be considered a relevant factor would have hardly impressed us. However 	 as the workmen are out of job from August 30 	 1973 i.e. roughly for a period of 12 years 	 it is in their own interest 	 that instead of reinstatement in service under an unwilling if not a hostile employer. adequate compensation would meet the ends of justice. Therefore 	 in the special facts and circumstances of this case 	 though disagreeing with tile reasons given by the Labour Court for declining to grant the normal relief of reinstatement 	 we uphold the same but the meagre compensation awarded by the Labour Court namely one year 's E. wages requires to be adequately and properly modified. Dr. Chiley gave us information about the last wages drawn by each of the workmen. That does not take care of over time allowance or bonus or other benefits that they enjoy. Roughly 	 the monthly pay packet of each workman appears to be around Rs. 1	000. Each one of them was a loader which means doing 1 ' manual job. Each one of them is entitled to backwages in full for a period of 12 years. Each one was therefore entitled to get Rs. 1	50	000 towards back wages. Adding to it the compensation in lieu of reinstatement in the amount of Rs. 50	000	 we are of the opinion that a total compensation in the amount of Rs. 2	00	000 to each appellant would meet the ends of justice. Before we conclude this judgment 	 we would like to make it abundantly clear that the compensation of Rs. 2	00	000 [I awarded to each appellant includes backwages for a period of 628 12 years. Now that the amount is being paid in one lump sum 	 it is likely that the employer may take recourse to Sec. 192 of the Income Tax Act 	 1961 which provides that when any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'Salaries ' shall 	 at the time of payment 	 deduct income tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income tax computed on the basis of the rates in force for the financial year in which the payment is made 	 on the estimated income of the assessee under this head for that financial year. If therefore the employer proceeds to deduct the income tax as provided by Sec. 192 	 we would like to make it abundantly clear that each appellant would be entitled to the relief under Sec. 89 of the Income Tax Act which provides that where 	 by reason of any portion of assessee 's salary being paid in arrears or in advance or by reason of his having received in any one financial year salary for more than 12 months or a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of Section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary 	 his income is assessed at a rate higher than that it would otherwise have been assessed 	 the Income tax Officer shall on an application made to him in this behalf grant such relief as may be prescribed. The prescribed relief is set out in Rule 21(A) of the Income tax Rules. Both the appellants are entitled to the relief under Sec. 89 because compensation herein awarded includes salary which was in arrears for 12 years and it is being paid in one lump sum under the orders of this Court. Therefore 	 the salary has to be spread over for a period of 12 years as also the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the relief should be given as provided by Sec. 89 of the Income tax Act read with Rule 21(A) of the Income tax Rules. Both the appellants are entitled to the same. If any application is necessary to be made 	 the same may be made to the competent authority and the respondent employer shall assist the appellants in each case for obtaining the relief. When the hearing concluded and we indicated that we were inclined to award compensation for backwages and in lieu of reinstatement 	 we requested Shri S.R. Srivastava 	 learned counsel for the appellants to give us in a tabulated form the compensation to which each appellant would be entitled with a spread over from the date of the order of termination of service till the end of the present year. The tabulations have been supplied in respect of each of the appellants. We have gone through the tabulations and 629 we are satisfied that they represent the correct state of affairs and they are taken on record and are being treated as part of this judgment. Accordingly 	 this appeal is partly allowed and the award giving one year 's wages as compensation is modified to the effect that each appellant should be paid Rs. 2	00	000 as and by way of backwages and in lieu of relief of reinstatement. As we have awarded adequate compensation 	 it is not necessary to award costs. We order accordingly. A.P.J. Appeal partly allowed.

The services of the appellants workmen who were employed as loaders in a foreign air transport company was terminated by the respondent employer. On a reference made by the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration the Labour Court held that the termination of services of the appellants constituted retrenchment within the meaning of section 25F read with Section 2(oo) of the Industries; Disputes Act 	 1947 and as the provisions of section 25F have not been complied with the termination of service would be bad and illegal. It was further held that even where section 25F of the Act is not complied with and the termination of service is illegal and invalid 	 there is certainly a discretion with the Labour Court whether to order reinstatement of the workmen or not. While quantifying the compensation 	 the Labour Court observed that the termination of services of the two workmen was bonafide and not a colourable exercise of power in accordance with the service rules and awarded one year 's wages as compensation for the failure of the employer to comply with the requirements of section 25F. The workmen appealed to this Court. Partly allowing the Appeal. ^ HELD; 1. Ordinarily 	 where the termination of service is found to be bad and illegal 	 in the field of industrial relations a declaration follows that the workman continues to be in service and has to be reinstated in service with full backwages. The Labour Court has however 	 the discretion to award compensation in respect of reinstatement if the circumstances of a particular case 	 are unusual or exceptional so as to make reinstatement inexpedient or improper. [625H 	 626A B] 624 2. Whenever it is said that something has to be done within the discretion of the authority then that something has to be done according to the rules of reason and Justice and not according to private opinion 	 according to law and not humor. It must not be arbitrary vague and fanciful. [626D] Hindustan Tin Works Pvt 	 Ltd. vs Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. [1979] I SCR 563 	 M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. 	 Rourkela vs A.K Roy & Ors. ; 	 Sharp vs Wekfield 	 & S.D. Jaisinghani vs Union of India & Ors. ; 	 relied on. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant case 	 the reasons given by the Labour Court for declining to grant the normal relief of reinstatement are not tenable. The order of the Labour Court is 	 however 	 upheld. The award giving one year wages as compensation is modified to the effect that each appellant should be paid Rs. 2	00	000 as and by way of back wages in lieu of relief of reinstatement. [626B C] 4. The Labour Court while declining to grant the relief of reinstatement which should have ordinarily followed 	 consequent upon its finding that the termination of service was bad and illegal 	 in exercise of its discretion awarded one year 's wages as compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the ground that 'the termination of service of each of the appellant was bonafide and not a colourable exercise of power in accordance with service rules '. There is thus an error apparent on the face of the record. inasmuch as if termination of service was according to service rules and was bonafide it could not be simultaneously held to be illegal and invalid. Therefore. this discretion was exercised on irrelevant and extraneous considerations or considerations not germane to the termination. [626F H 	 627Al 5. The appellants are entitled to relief under section 89 of the Income Tax Act 	 1961 read with Rule 21(A) of the income Tax Rules 	 1962 because compensation herein awarded includes salary which was in arrears for 12 years and is being paid in one lump sum under orders of Court. Respondent employer shall assist the appellants for obtaining the relief. [628E F]