ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel for both the parties. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Special Appeal No. 292/92 dated April 26, 1994.

3. The undisputed facts are that respondent was appointed for a period of three months or till the regularly selected candidate assumes office. He was appointed on January 28, 1988 and his appointment came to be terminated on November 19, 1988. When the writ petition was filed, the learned single Judge held that since he had completed more then 240 days, the termination is in violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ) and directed to make fresh appointment of the respondent. When appeal was filed against the latter part of the order, the Division Bench set aside the latter part of the order and directed reinstatement with back wages. As against the order altered by the Division Bench, the present appeal came to be filed.

4. The controversy now stands concluded by a judgment of this Court reported in M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager LTC1. Therein this Court had held that once an appointment is for a fixed period. Se