ORDER : K.G. Balakrishnan, J. - The Executive Engineer, Forest and Fisheries Development Scheme is the appellant before us. The seven respondents herein were appointed on daily-wage basis on 12-10-1982. They had been working in the project in connection with fisheries ports in Gujarat. The services of six respondents were terminated with effect from 1-3-1999. The respondents sought a reference alleging that their termination is illegal. The appellant herein contended before the Labour Court that the respondents were appointed on work-charge basis for a fixed period and after completion of the period their services automatically stood terminated and moreover, the Department did not require their services any longer. The respondents contended that some of the employees were shifted to Pipavas Office, where the appellant had started a new project. The Labour Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal and directed that out of seven respondents six were paid 80% of the back wages for the period during which they were out of service. As regards the 7th respondent, there was evidence that he was employed elsewhere and so in his case the back wages were confined to 20%. 2. The Executive Engineer challenged that order by way of a special civil application before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same which was challenged before the Division Bench by way of an LPA and the same was summarily dismissed. 3. Hence, this appeal by way of special leave. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appointment of the respondents was as daily-wage clerks under the Scheme which came to an end and they were rightly removed from service. The appellant also contended that the reference was sought by the respondents two years after their termination from service. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the award was rightly passed by the Labour Court. 5. The contentions raised by the appellant herein were dealt with by the Labour Court as well as by the High Court. 6. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Scheme of Fisheries and Port Development had continued and after completion of one project the appellant had started another project. 5. The contentions raised by the appellant herein were dealt with by the Labour Court as well as by the High Court. 6. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Scheme of Fisheries and Port Development had continued and after completion of one project the appellant had started another project. As the project was continuing the appointment of other employees on temporary basis for the new project and the termination of the services of the persons already appointed as daily-wage clerks was held illegal. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellants that the services of these respondents were not required in the new project. 7. The counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant Department is unnecessarily burdened with payment of back wages and it would cause serious financial burden on the Department. The respondents were out of service for a period of nearly 15 years. The respondents are educated persons and they must have been engaged in some employment, at best for some period out of the 15 years they were out of employment. Therefore, it is just and proper that the back wages payable to Respondents 1 to 6 be restricted to 50% of the amount already ordered by the Labour Court for the period they were out of service. As regards back wages paid to the 7th respondent we find no reason to interfere. The appellant shall pay back wages to the respondents within a period of three months from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.