H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned AGP Mr. K.J. Dwivedi for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi for the respondent.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Anand in Reference No. 1203 of 1992 dated 06.12.2001 whereby the Labour Court has set aside termination order and granted 40% back wages of interim period with cost of Rs. 1000/-.

3. This Court has, on 10.07.2002, issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of Para.14(C) subject to the right of the respondent under Section 17-B of the I.D.Act,1947.

4. Learned AGP Mr. Dwivedi raised contention that respondent was appointed in a particular project and a moment project comes to an end, his service comes to an end and it cannot considered to be a termination and the workman is not entitled the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). He also raised contention that workman was not selected by due process of selection and therefore, he is not entitled the reinstatement in service. He also raised contention that there is no post is available and therefore, there is no question to reinstate the workman by the petitioner. The