JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. These two writ applications arise out of a common award rendered in Ref. Case No. 148 of 1993 by the Presiding Office, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-2 Dhanbad. Since the facts and questions of law being similar, these two writ applications are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In both the writ applications the prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order and direction quashing the said award passed on 22nd September, 1995, whereby and whereunder it was held that the demand of the union for reinstatement of the concerned workmen with full back wages is justified and further that the concerned workmen are entitled to be reinstated in service of the management of B.C.C.L Dhanbad in category No. 1 Mazdoor with full back wages from the date of their stoppage. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Government company having its registered office at Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad. The Central Government brought an Act, to constitute and regulate the Armed Force of the Union for the better protection and security of the industrial undertakings owned by the Central Government and certain other industrial undertaking and for the matters connected therewith known as the Central industrial Security Force Act. (hereinafter referred to as the CISF Act.). Section 14 of the said Act, provides for deputation of the force to industrial undertakings in public sector. Under the provision of the said Act, the petitioner being an industrial undertakings took the services of the C.I.S.F. personnel for the purpose of its security. The C.I.S.F was under the control of the Central Government and its personnel were deployed for its security and protection. According to the terms, the management had to bear cost of the force for the period of its deputation. There was no relationship of the employer and employee between the management-B.C.C.L and the said workmen. It was stated that some persons, who were on deputation in the service of the C.LS.F as cooks-washer men, barbers, started claiming that they are the employees of the management and as such they are entitled to be regularized under the service of the petitioner. It was stated that some persons, who were on deputation in the service of the C.LS.F as cooks-washer men, barbers, started claiming that they are the employees of the management and as such they are entitled to be regularized under the service of the petitioner. The said persons initially invoked writ jurisdiction of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, as then was, and went upto the Apex Court but in view of the nature of the dispute raised by them, invoking of writ jurisdiction was denied to them. Thereafter the said persons raised dispute under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was ultimately referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal II, Dhanbad for adjudication on the following term : "Whether the demand of the union for reinstatement of the following workmen with full back wages is justified ? If so, to what relief the workmen are entitled and from which date ?" Parties to the dispute then filed their respective written statement and evidences were led on behalf of both the sides. According to the petitioner, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the said workmen but the tribunal erroneously rendered the award in their favour holding the concerned workmen as employee of the petitioner. The award is thus vitiated on account of serious error of law and is liable to be quashed. 4. On behalf of the concerned workmen-respondent a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in both the cases mainly contending that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned award and the tribunal after thoroughly considering and appreciating the facts and evidences on record has rendered proper, legal and justified award holding that there is relationship of the employer and employee between the management and the concerned workmen and the respondent- workmen are entitled to be regularized with full back wages since the date of their stoppage of payment. It was further contended that the petitioner has invited this Court to adjudicate upon questions of fact on appraisal of the evidences which is not permissible in extra- ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent- workmen further claimed that there are adequate evidences which go to establish that the concerned workmen were the employees of the management and they have been working and performing their jobs which was perennial in nature. The respondent- workmen further claimed that there are adequate evidences which go to establish that the concerned workmen were the employees of the management and they have been working and performing their jobs which was perennial in nature. The payments were made out of the fund of the management and as such there is a relationship of employer and employee. It was stated that contrary to the provision of law they were stopped from working although they were all along ready and willing to perform their job. The concerned workmen were not even paid proper wages. The management by way of unfair labour practice violated the provision of N.C.W.D. as well as the statutory provisions and exploited the workmen and in such circumstances they were legally entitled to be reinstated and regularized in the service and to get full wages of category No. I, Mazdoor. According to the respondent No. 2, all the aspects, factual and legal, were considered by the learned tribunal and the award is wholly legal and valid and warrants no interference by this Court. 5. When these two writ applications were taken-up for the hearing Mr. S.K. Laik learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in both the case submitted that these two writ applications may be disposed of on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of other similarly situated persons in C.W.J.C. No. 2589 of 1991(R) which was affirmed with certain modification by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1998. 6. Mr. Anand Sen learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the cases initially tried to support the writ applications but in quick succession thereafter accepted that the judgment of the said writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 2589 of 1991 passed by the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, as then was, which was ultimately upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1998 with certain modification. The said case had similar facts and circumstances. 7. From the perusal of the judgment dated 19th May, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2589 of 1991 (R) it appears that the said writ application was filed challenging the award whereby 39, concerned workmen were held entitled to be regularized in the service with back wages as per the category No. 1 Mazdoor. 7. From the perusal of the judgment dated 19th May, 1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2589 of 1991 (R) it appears that the said writ application was filed challenging the award whereby 39, concerned workmen were held entitled to be regularized in the service with back wages as per the category No. 1 Mazdoor. The concerned workmen were similarly situated and almost the same question of facts and law were canvassed. On consideration of the same the said writ application was dismissed upholding the award of the tribunal. Against the said judgment, the management-petitioner went in appeal to the Apex Court and by order dated 12.9.2000 of the Apex Court disposed of the same being Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1998 upholding the award regarding regularization arid declined to interfere with that part of the award and the judgment of the High Court. However, the Apex Court reduced the liability of the payment of the full back wages to 50% and modified that part of the award on to that extent. Since admittedly there is every similarity in the facts and circumstances in between the cases in hand and the said referred case, in order to maintain judicial consistency, these two writ applications are disposed of accordingly. 8. In the result these two writ applications are dismissed and the impugned award as contained in Annexure-4, in both the writ applications is affirmed with modification of reducing full back wages to 50% of the back wages which in the light of the said judgment has been conceded to by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.