( 1 ) THE petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondents in giving artificial intermittent break on every 30th day during the entire service period of the petitioner to be illegal, invalid and inoperative. The petitioner further prays that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner the wages for the break period. The last and the important prayer is made for the declaration of the action of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioner as being violative of Sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition has been amended by the petitioner and as per the amended petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 19th October 1995.

( 2 ) THIS Court, on 9-12-1985 passed the order which reads as under :"rule. Interim relief refused. However, it will be open to the respondents to give employment to the petitioner anywhere in the District as and when the work is available for 29 days on the same terms and conditions till this petition is disposed of. Also, it will be open to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service till regularly recruited candidates become available. "

( 3 ) SO, the interim relief has not been granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner, as prayed for in the Special Civil Application. The interim relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this Special Civil Application is as under :"8 (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents, their servants and agents from terminating, discharging or otherwise discontinuing the services of the petitioner and restrain the respondents from giving artificial intermittent break, on 30th day of the month. "however, this Court has left it open to the respondents to give the employment to the petitioner anywhere in a District as and when the work is available for 29 days, on the same terms and conditions till the disposal of the petition. It is further being ordered that the respondents may continue the petitioner in service till regularly recruited candidates become available.

( 4 ) THE reply to this Special Civil Application is filed by the respondent No. 1 and the claim of the petitioner has been contested. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited some of the decisions of the Apex Court in support of his contentions that the termination of the services of the petitioner is in violation of sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such, he is entitled for the reinstatement in service with back wages. It is contended that the action of the respondents in giving artificial break in the service of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was given purely ad-hoc/temporary appointment as and when there is work available. The last appointment is given to the petitioner for the period which has come to an end on 14th October 1995. As it is the case of giving fixed term appointment to the petitioner, the appointment has come to an end on the expiry of the term of appointment and it cannot be said to be a case of retrenchment as what the petitioner has contended. A chart has been filed along with the affidavit-in-reply showing the period for which the petitioner worked. It is further stated in the reply that two sanctioned post of Clerk in the office of the respondents were there and those posts have been filled in by regular appointment.

( 5 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. It comes out from the statement Annexure-C annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, that the petitioner has been given fixed term appointment and that appointment has come to an end by afflux of time. Last such appointment was given for a period ending on 14th October 1995 and thereafter, the respondent had not given any appointment to the petitioner. Thereafter