1. The questions raised in both these appeals are more or less similar. The learned single judge who decided the Original Petition which is subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 194/82 was only following the earlier judgment in O. P. No. 2140/81 which is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No 132/82.

2. In both these cases, the managements which had treated the services of an employee as terminated were the respondents in the Original Petitions and are the appellants in these appeals. In O. P. No. 2140/81 the challenge is to an order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in an industrial dispute between the petitioner in the Original Petition and the 2nd respondent therein, the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Kalamassery concerning the termination of service of the workman concerned. It was contended by the workman that his service was terminated without valid reasons and therefore he was liable to be reinstated with all benefits. This was met by the management by reference to Clause.19(4) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the management's establishments. That clause provides for loss of lien by a workman by its operation on consecutive absence for a period of 8 day