Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—This is second round of litigation. The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner with 50 percent back wages.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the respondent workman alleged that he was appointed as an Engraver in the Government Press at Allahabad on 10th December, 1991 and continued to work till 1st of September, 2004. It was alleged that he worked for almost 13 years without any break in service and that he was arbitrarily removed without complying with the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The respondents, accordingly prayed that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages.

3. The petitioner in the written statement has specifically taken a stand that the post of Engraver became vacant and was never filled up and that the respondent workman in question was never employed either as a regular employee or on a muster roll or on daily wage basis and that the respondent workman was running a shop of engraving and was doing his private business and that in exigency of work, the petitioner gave him work orders, which he executed it at his shop. However for certain work, on account of security reasons, he was allowed to do the said work in the foundry located inside the Government Press. The petitioners further took a stand that the respondent workman was paid for the work order and that he was never paid wages as a regular employee.

4. Initially, the labour Court given an award holding that the respondent workman was not entitled to any relief. The workman, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was allowed and the matter was remitted again to the labour Court to decide the matter afresh.

5. The labour Court after considering the material evidence on record, has now given a specific finding to the effect that the respondent workman was actually engaged as an Engraver by the Government Press and that he was working in that capacity for almost 13 years before he was arbitrarily removed. The labour Court has also given a finding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and that retrenchment compensation etc. as specified under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 was not given nor paid before the respondent workman was discharged from the service of the Government Press. The labour Court rejected the stand of the employer, namely, that he was employed on a contract basis. The labour Court found that the photocopies of the work orders, which were issued to the respondent workman could not be taken into consideration as it was not admissible in evidence, since the original copies were not produced. The labour Court further relied upon a certificate dated 14th February, 2003 before the Deputy Director indicating that the respondent workman had worked from 1991 to 2003 in the foundry of the Government Press. On these findings, the labour Court held that the order of termination passed by the employer was wholly illegal and accordingly directed the reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the present writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed upon the fact that the evidence filed by the employers were not considered by the labour Court and that the labour Court, in a very cursory manner, has rejected the evidence on the pretext that the original document were not filed, when in fact, photocopies filed by the employer was duly proved by a witness. The learned counsel further submitted that the Deputy Director had issued another certificate on 11th January, 2005 denying the issuance of the earlier certificate of 2003. The learned counsel submitted that this certificate was never considered by the labour Court.

8. Having heard the l