1. - We have heard Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D.S. Rajvi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Both the Special Appeals raise similar questions of law and are, thus, decided by a common judgment.

3. The Indian Telephone Industries (for short, "the ITI") invited names from the Employment Exchange for engagement on the post of Technician and LDC (Accounts Clerk) in the year 1987. Ashok Kumar Sharma, respondent in Writ Petition No. 3283/2001 was qualified and was called for interview on 12.11.1987. He was appointed on 28.11.1987. His services were extended from 31.12.1990 and, thereafter, he continued on the post upto 31.3.1992, when his services were dispensed-with on the ground that the work on the project was complete. He filed a Writ Petition No.2225/1992 "Ashok Kumar v. Union of India", which was dismissed on 12.3.1996 on the ground of alternative remedy. He made an application to the State Government on which a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner to decide the labour dispute. The Reference No.56/1998 was made to decide as to whether the termination order dated 31.3.1992 was valid and legal? The Industrial Tribunal passed the award on 23.2.2001 and quashed the termination order dated 31.3.1992 with directions to treat the workman to continue in service with costs of Rs. 5000/-. The award was published on 12.6.2001. A Writ Petition No.3283/2001 filed by the appellant-ITI was dismissed on 30.10.2012 giving rise to D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.58/2013.

4. The facts giving rise to the connected D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.57/2013 are also similar, except that the workman was called for interview, selected and appointed on 01.03.1989 as Technician, as he held a diploma in Engineering. His services were dispensed with by order dated 31.3.1992 on the ground that the project had come to an end. The respondent-workman Sultana Ram preferred Writ Petition No.2038/1992, which was dismissed on 10.3.1998 on the ground of alternative remedy. The workman Sultana Ram made application to the State Government on which a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner on 1.9.1998 to decide as to whether the termination order dated 31.3.1992 was legal and valid and the relief to which the workman was entitled. The Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner by an award dated 23.2.2001 answered the reference in favour of the workman and quashed the termination order dt. 31.03.1992 as unlawful and directed to treat him to be continued in service with Rs. 5000/- as cost. The award was published on 12.6.2001 against which the appellant-ITI preferred the Writ Petition No.3282/2001, which was dismissed on 30.10.2012 giving rise to D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.57/2013.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner did not have the jurisdiction to consider the claim of the respondent-workmen. In the affidavit of Shri R.B. Singh, the Project Manager, ITI Limited, Bikaner, it was stated that ITI Limited is a Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in which the Central Government holds 100% share. The Ministry of Defence had entrusted the project for Army Static Communication Network to the Company. The project was assigned to ITI, Bikaner. The project was temporary in nature. The respondents as well as other workmen were engaged on non-technical work for which according to the availability of work in the project, their period of service was extended from time to time. The project came to an end on 31.3.1992, after which their services could not be extended. The respondents were given gratuity of 15 days for every completed year of employment, leave encashment and one month's notice pay in advance before their services were dispensed with. The respondents were paid the balance in their P.F. a/c and compensation for retrenchment calculated at Rs. 6440/- and Rs. 7960/- respectively by cheques on 27.3.1992.

6. It was furt