ABHAY GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of w. A. No. 96/2006 as well as W. A. No. 97/2006- as they arise against the common order passed by the learned Writ Court on April 5, 2006. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1-Ashok Kumar Gupta was engaged on daily wage basis for a period of 59 days at the fixed rate by the Collector vide appointment order dated August 30, 1994. His employment was contractual and continued from time to time upto September 6, 1996. The aforesaid appointment was terminated vide an order dated September 6, 1996, thereafter, the respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute and the matter was referred for adjudication to labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, where it was registered at Case No. 17/1998 I. D. Act (ref ). By order dated February 22, 2000, the Labour court found that the aforesaid order of oral termination is nothing but an illegal retrenchment and considering the same directed for reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages. The remaining 50% back wages was not granted because there was delay on the part of employee approaching the Conciliation officer. There was also delay in prosecuting the matter before the Labour Court. Against the aforesaid award the employee filed Writ petition No. 16/2001 challenging the deduction of 50% back wages and the appellant-Special area Development Authority has also filed writ Petition No. 1382/2000 challenging the order of reinstatement of the employee as well as the order of awarding 50% back wages. The writ Court heard both the petitions and vide order dated April 5, 2006 directed that the respondent-employee is entitled for hundred per cent back wages, along with reinstatement against which the employer-Special development Authority has filed the aforesaid two writ appeals. At the time of final hearing of these appeals, learned counsel for the respondents employee submitted that he has no objection to restore the order passed by the labour Court for reinstatement along with 50% back wages as after award by the Labour Court on February 22, 2000, he has already been reinstated, therefore, he would be satisfied if the award of the Labour Court is maintained and 50% of back wages is awarded to him. He has also raised an objection that the writ appeal is not maintainable as the writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the nature of the order passed by the writ court was also under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 3 ) IN reply, Shri Bhadoriya submitted that he had filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and it was the employee who had filed the petition only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. His submission is that there was delay on the part of the employee and the Labour Court has committed illegality in granting 50% back wages. The case of the respondent will fall under Section 2 (oo) (bb) and will not fall under section 25-F as has been held by the Labour court. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents and award on record, it is clear that as contended on behalf of the appellant, the case of the respondent will not fall within the exempted Clause of Section 2 of sub-section (oo) and sub-section (bb ). For considering the case under sub-clause (bb) of section 2, the termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. We have perused the appointment order Annexure p/1 in which there is no stipulation that after the expiry of the particular period the service shall be liable to be terminated. We have perused the appointment order Annexure p/1 in which there is no stipulation that after the expiry of the particular period the service shall be liable to be terminated. Therefore, learned labour Court was fully justified in rejecting the contention of the appellants that the case of the respondent will not come within the purview of exempted Clause (bb) or (oo) of Section 2 and certainly in that case the case will fall under section 25-F because the respondents-employee worked continuously w. e. f. September 1, 1994 to September 5, 1996 i. e. more than 240 days in a year and his services were retrenched without payment of retrenchment compensation as per provisions of section 25-F. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and we are also of the view that the Labour Court was justified in passing the award of reinstatement in favour of the respondent. The respondent has already been reinstated in compliance of the award. So far as the grant of back wages by the Labour court is concerned, the Labour Court has awarded 50% back wages on the ground that the respondent has not proved before the Labour court that he remained unemployed during the pendency of the petition. There is no specific denial of the question which was put to the respondent about engagement in any other; gainful employment and the appellant has also failed to prove before the Labour Court that the respondent remained within the employment during the period and he was not gainfully employed otherwise The Labour Court also found that there was delay in raising the dispute. The same was raised in the month of january, 1997. The learned counsel for the respondent also could not point out that how the matter was delayed before the Labour Court for three years, as the dispute remained pending in the Labour Court for a period of three years. Therefore, considering the conduct of the respondent as well as the delay and all other factual aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has rightly awarded 50% back wages to the respondent, which according to the respondent is fully justified and the counsel for the respondent admits that he has no objection for restoring the order of the Labour Court. Therefore, considering the conduct of the respondent as well as the delay and all other factual aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has rightly awarded 50% back wages to the respondent, which according to the respondent is fully justified and the counsel for the respondent admits that he has no objection for restoring the order of the Labour Court. ( 5 ) SINCE the learned counsel for the respondent has agreed for restoring of the judgment of the Labour Court, we do not find any substance in the petition filed by the counsel for the appellant either challenging the reinstatement or grant of 50% back wages, which appears to be fully justified. The learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy us that how the order of 50% back wages passed by Labour Court is contrary to law and unreasonable. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid contention, we modify the Court order passed in Writ Petition no. 16/2001 dated April 5, 2006 to the extent indicated above, The respondent shall be entitled for 50% back wages from the date of termination i. e. September 6, 1996 till the award of the Labour Court dated February 22, 2000 and thereafter shall be entitled for full back wages from the date of the award till the reinstatement. ( 7 ) WITH the aforesaid direction, both the writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. .