Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Learned Standing Counsel has pressed this writ petition only in so far as the relief of reinstatement has been granted by Labour Court with 50% back wages and contended that even if the Labour Court was right in holding that workman having completed 240 days in each year, has worked for about four years from 1988 to 1992, was entitled for protection of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) that would not automatically result in granting relief of reinstatement for the reason that workman was a daily wager, never recruited in accordance with provisions prescribed in law consistent with Article 16 of the Constitution, hence having worked for only four years could not have been allowed reinstatement with 50% back wages for a period of almost 12 years.

2. The workman was disengaged on 1.9.1992 and award was delivered on 4.9.2003 published on 26.4.2004 in Adjudication Case No. 484 of 1994. It is said that the award to this extent is contrary to law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court in catena of decisions.

3. Sri Siddharth, learned counsel appearing for respondent-workman submitted that once