Judgment S. S. SUDHALKAR, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the award of the Labour Court dated july 13, 2000, (Annexure P.7) vide which respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we find mat this is without merit. The workman was appointed on August 1, 1995 and he worked upto August 18, 1997. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the workman was employed only for a period of 89 days at a time because the regular appointments were to be made. On asking the learned counsel for the petitioners as to who were the regular persons appointed and when they were appointed, he has stated that on February 17, 1997 one Shri Ram Kumar was appointed and on February 29, 1999 one Sant singh was appointed. It can be seen that even after Ram Kumars appointment, the petitioner continued for 6 months. He was terminated much prior to appointment of Sant Singh. Annexure P.4 is a letter of the Joint Secretary to all Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishad in the State of Haryana. The first paragraph of the letter, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, is as under: "it has been noticed that appointments are being made by you against the vacant class iv and Car Drivers posts in Zila Parishads on daily wage/contract basis. The government has completely banned the making of any appointments on daily wage basis and if the department considered it most urgent to fill up any vacancy then prior approval to fill up the post on contract basis be obtained from the Finance Department. The department had already sent a proposal to the Finance Department for granting exemption in this respect and to the effect that till the sanctioned posts in the Zila parishads are filled up by making a regular appointments of the employees, permission be granted to fill up these posts on contract basis. This matter is still under consideration of the Finance Department. " 3. This shows that in most urgent cases, the posts are to be filled on contract basis after prior approval. This letter is dated July 15, 1997 i. e. after the workman was appointed. 4. This matter is still under consideration of the Finance Department. " 3. This shows that in most urgent cases, the posts are to be filled on contract basis after prior approval. This letter is dated July 15, 1997 i. e. after the workman was appointed. 4. The Labour Court has observed that the admitted case of the petitioner is that workman was given appointment and he worked for more than 240 days within 12 months prior to his termination. However, there were breaks of two days each time in the spell of appointments. The Labour Court observed that amounted to unfair labour practice. He has relied on the case of Ferozepur Central Co-operative Bank limited V/s. Labour Court, Bhatinda and another, F. J. R.367 decided on May 6, 1985. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has relied on various authorities. The first is the case of Surjit singh and others V/s. State of Punjab and others. , 1991 (12) R. S. J.513. It is the judgment of single judge of this Court. In that case, the facts are different. The point for consideration in that case was that three cadres i. e. of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant, accountant and Accountant-cum-Fee collectors were clubbed by the impugned orders. On the revision filed under Sec.42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets act, 1961 by some of the equally affected persons, the impugned orders were set aside and Government had rejected the proposal of the Board for clubbing all the three cadres. 6. The facts of the said case are different and therefore, we do not opine regarding the findings of that judgment. However, in the present case, there is no clubbing, of different orders and therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. The next case, referred to by the counsel for the petitioners is of State of Rajasthan and others v. Rameshwarlal Gahlot, AIR 1996 SC 1001 : 1996 (1) SCC 595 : 1996-I-LLJ-888. In that case it was held that termination is not retrenchment and not illegal unless it is mala fide. In the present case, the order of termination in the letter, Annexure P.4, shows that there was mala fide. Even though the post was available, the workman was continuing for a long period on the basis of appointment of 89 days and mere were terminal gaps. In the present case, the order of termination in the letter, Annexure P.4, shows that there was mala fide. Even though the post was available, the workman was continuing for a long period on the basis of appointment of 89 days and mere were terminal gaps. Moreover, when the workman was retrenched, no regular incumbent was taken at that time. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Karnal Central co-operative Societies Bank Limited, Karnal V/s. State of Haryana and others, (1995-1) 109 PLR 102. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that when the appointment was contractual in nature for 89 days, and the total working days were 210, Sec.25-F cannot be attracted and services could be terminated at any time, in accordance with the appointment letter. The facts of this case are apparently different from the present case. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Madan Mohan Gupta v. PGIMER and another, 1995 (4) R. SJ.878. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court ad hoc appointee has no right to post beyond period stipulated in the appointment letter and he has no right to continue till regularly selected candidate comes. The facts of this case are also different from the present case. It was not a case arising under the Industrial Disputes Act. The question of "unfair labour practice" and effect of completing 240 days was not under consideration. 10. In view of the above reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the award of the Labour court. This writ petition is therefore, dismissed.