1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged common judgment and order dated 21.1.2002, passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur and confirmed in Revision on 14.1.2004 by the Industrial Court, Nagpur.

3. The respondent No.2 in both these writ petitions filed complaints i.e. Complaint (ULP) Nos.30/1990 and 31/1990 in the Labour Court at Nagpur, alleging therein that they were appointed initially on 14.7.1985. They worked under the petitioners until they were orally terminated w.e.f. 27.10.1989. According to them no seniority list was published as required by Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 before the termination nor the procedure required by Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was followed and on the contrary juniors to them were retained in the employment. According to them the work was available even at the time of termination of their services and, therefore, the termination was made for patently false reasons. They then averred that both of them were the projected affected persons and were appointed by the petitioners in that category of employment and as such their services could not have been terminated, they being in the said category. As per policy decision of the Government in lieu of the land taken from them, they are required to be provided employment on permanent basis. They then alleged that the officers of the petitioners realising this position even issued a letter dated 17.3.1989 for continuing their services. The petitioners filed their reply to the application under Section 30 (2) of the Act which was subsequently adopted as written statement. It was stated that the complainants were engaged on daily wages and were terminated w.e.f. 2.11.1989 due to completion of project work. They did not complete 240 days of continuous service. The petitioners, however, admitted that the complainants being project affected persons were entitled to employment on priority basis and in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 (b) and (c) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986. The petitioners then denied the claim of the complainants. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties allowed the complaints and set aside the termination orders and directed their reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages w.e.f. 27.10.1989. The petitioners challenged the said judgment of the Labour Court before the Industrial Court by filing revision but the same was partly allowed by the Industrial Court only in so far as the claim of award of back wages is concerned and reduced the same to 25%, but the order of reinstatement was maintained. Hence, these writ petitions.

4. Since Mr. J.T. Gilda, the learned Counsel for the petitioners remained absent and this Court had refused adjournment under a separate order. This Court heard learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and learned Counsel for respondent No.2 in both these writ petitions. This Court went through the entire record as well as the impugned orders. Now in view of the admitted position that the respondents/complainants were projected affected persons whose lands were taken by the Government for project and that they were appointed in that category, having once appointed them, they could not have been terminated. Even assuming that the work was not available in a particular project that could not be a ground for terminating their services and on the contrary in that case they were required to be absorbed in some other project or establishment. Having lost their lands forever, the petitioners cannot be allowed to make a show of appointing them for three years and thereafter ask them to go away. That is not the spirit of the policy or the legislative intention in incorporating certain provisions in the Maharashtra Project