ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, J. The respondent herein was working as a daily-wager in the Public Works Department of the State of Haryana since 1989. His name was included in the muster roll maintained by the Department. In July 1994, services of the respondent were terminated and the termination of the services of the respondent came before the Labour Court by way of reference. Before the Labour Court, the appellant herein contended that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days in the previous year and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant herein also contended that the termination of the respondent was in view of the instruction issued by the Government on 17-8-1994. The Labour Court did not accept these pleas and held that the termination of the respondent was illegal and directed the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent with full back wages. This award by the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant before the High Court, and the High Court too did not accept the plea of the appellant. Hence the appeal. We heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. The counsel for the appellant contended that the services of the respondent were terminated in July 1994. Therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of GO dated 17-8-1994. The appellant had also contended that the respondent had not worked for more than 240 days and was not entitled to be retained in the muster roll. We do not find any force in this contention. The Labour Court held that no documents were produced to substantiate the contentions advanced by the appellant. 3. Lastly, the counsel for the appellant contended that by the impugned award the appellant herein has been directed to pay full back wages for a long period and the respondent being a skilled labourer must have been working as a beldar elsewhere and it is quite unlikely that he remained unemployed throughout the period during which he was out of employment. It is true that the respondent also must have been working for some period, but we do not think it that he had been earning a fairly good amount. At the same time, it is reasonable to presume that he must have earned something during this period to make both ends meet. It is true that the respondent also must have been working for some period, but we do not think it that he had been earning a fairly good amount. At the same time, it is reasonable to presume that he must have earned something during this period to make both ends meet. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the back wages payable to the respondent can be reduced to 50%. The award passed by the Labour Court is modified to the above extent. The appellant to pay the back wages within a period of four months from today. 4. The appeal is partly allowed. Appeal partly allowed.