S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) BY this common judgment, two writ petitions being CWP No. 14170 of 1999 and 1622 of 2000 are being disposed of. Both these two writ petitions arise out of the same award and, therefore, they are heard together.
(2.) BY the impugned award, the Labour Court, reinstated the workman with continuity of service, however, with only 50% back wages. The employer has challenged the award of re -instatement by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 14170 of 1999 and the workman has challenged the denial of 50% back wages by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 1622 of 2000. The case of the workman is that he was employed as Security Guard on 1.4.1992 and that his services were terminated in January, 1993. The date of appointment is not in dispute, however, the case of the employer is that the workman left the job after January, 1993.
(3.) THE second thing, which is in dispute, is regarding the working days of workman in the month of November, 1992. The employer contends that the workman has not worked in that month while contrary is the stand of workman. It is, of course, admitted that if it is held that the workman worked in the month of November, 1992 he had completed 240 days of service.;