ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2013 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos.23076, 23077, 23078 and 23079 of 2007.

3. Appellant No.1 was appointed as a computer operator with the respondent on 1st December, 1992. Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 were similarly appointed as computer operators with the respondent from sometime between January, 1994 and May, 1994.

4. According to the appellants, their services were satisfactory and there was no break in their services, but in spite of this, their services were terminated by an oral order on 3rd October, 1999.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the termination, the appellants raised an industrial dispute and reference was made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short "CGIT"). The CGIT gave its award on 27th December, 2006. It was held by the CGIT that the services of the appellants were terminated contrary to Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as they were not paid any retrenchment compensation nor were they paid any notice pay. Accordingly, the CGIT directed their reinstatement with full back wages.

6. At this stage, it may be noted that the case of the respondent was that the appellants were engaged for the purposes of a project and since that project came to an end, their services were terminated. We have been shown the Project Document bearing No. IND/88/047/A/01/15. According to the Project Document, the project was to start sometime in April, 1989 and the duration was two years seven months. In other words, the project was to last till November, 1991. We are told today that the project continued up to 1999. Be that as it may, the appellants were appointed as computer operators, as mentioned above, only in December, 1992 and January/May, 1994, which is after the initial duration of the project, but, as now pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, during the extended period of the project. On this basis, a contention was raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the appointment of the appellants was for the purposes of the project and as the project came to an end sometime in 1999, their services were terminated.

7. It has also come on record that there was no advertisement on the basis of which the appellants were engaged, but they were required to take some sort of a written examination followed by an interview and it is on that basis that they were selected.

8. As mentioned above, the case of the respondent was not accepted by the CGIT and it was held by the CGIT that the appointment of the appellants was in accordance with law and their termination was contrary to Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, a direction was given to reinstate the appellants with full back wages.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CGIT, the respondent preferred writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court. The writ petitions were allowed by the High Court. The decision of the writ petitions is under challenge before us.

10. On 15th May, 2007, the High Court passed an interim order to the effect that from the date of the order the appellants will be paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. For the period prior to that, the respondent was directed to deposit back wages of the appellants before the CGIT. It is not in dispute that the appellants were paid Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 15th May, 2007 till sometime in January, 2013 when the writ petitions filed by the appellants were allowed. While allowing the writ petitions, the High Court permitted the respondent to withdraw the deposited amount of back wages. We are told that the respondent has since withdrawn that amount. In other words, the appellants have only received Rs.3,000/- per month from 15th May, 2007 until the disposal of the writ petitions.

11. It is under these circumstances the appellants are now before us.

12. We have gone through the judgment of the High