ORDER 1. Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (C) No. 1493 of 2002. 2. The Union of India has challenged the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan passed on 12-1-2001. The respondents in these appeals were appointed as casual labourers (mazdoors) in the stores maintained by the Army having headquarters at Jodhpur. Initially these respondents were appointed on daily wages for a period of 89 days and on completion of the period they were terminated from service and again they were appointed as casual labourers immediately after their termination and thus they were terminated and reappointed in four spells. Originally their salary was fixed at Rs 750 per month plus allowances and thereafter it was raised to Rs 35 per day and later to Rs 40 per day. When their services were first terminated on 11-1-1995, they challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jodhpur. The respondents contended that they would have completed the requisite 240 days but for the intermittent termination of their services and therefore their termination was violative of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central Administrative Tribunal did not accept this plea and refused to grant any relief. Aggrieved by that order the respondents preferred writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur and by the impugned judgment the High Court directed that they shall be reinstated in service with effect from 31-3-2001 and further directed that the pay and allowances due to them shall be paid for the period they were out of service. That order is under challenge before this Court. 3. We have heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel for the respondents. The counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents were appointed as casual labourers for a period of 89 days and they had no right to be reinstated in service as they had completed 89 days, the period for which they were appointed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contended that they were appointed as against the selection posts and they were also sponsored by the employment exchange and they had also undergone medical examination and that the termination orders served on the respondents were to see only that these respondents did not continue in service for a period of 240 days. 4. 4. The respondents were appointed against casual labourers but nevertheless they continued in service for four spells and that too their reappointments were made immediately within a few days of termination on completion of 89 days. It shows that sufficient work was available with the employer and had there been no termination on completion of 89 days, they would have completed 240 days of continuous employment. In that view of the matter the appellants had violated Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act. We do not find any error or illegality in the decision rendered by the Division Bench. We direct the appellants to re-employ the respondents as daily-wagers. However, the direction of the High Court for payment of entire salaries and allowances for the period they were out of service was not justified under the circumstances. The termination of the respondents was from 11-1-1995 and now a fairly long period has passed and in the meantime, the respondents must have been engaged in employment in any other work. Therefore, we direct the appellants to re-employ the respondents with 50% back wages from the date of their termination till their re-employment. The appellants shall re-employ the respondents within a period of one month. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 6. We find that the conclusions of CAT as upheld by the High Court revolve around the appellant facing a criminal trial. At the time of issuing appointment order, the case had not been initiated. Though the case was a instituted, the same has ended in acquittal. It was open to the official respondents concerned to terminate the contractual appointment. It is to be noted that the appellant was permitted to join after his release from custody. Though the authorities were aware of the criminal case against him, they did not put an end to the contractual appointment. It was only pursuant to CATs order on the basis of a petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate that the b appointment was nullified. Whether the appellant deserved to be continued had not been independently examined by the authorities. By the time the High Court decided the matter, the appellant had already been acquitted. The effect of such acquittal has also not been considered by the High Court. Mere non-appearance before CAT could not have been held to be the determinative factor. Whether the appellant deserved to be continued had not been independently examined by the authorities. By the time the High Court decided the matter, the appellant had already been acquitted. The effect of such acquittal has also not been considered by the High Court. Mere non-appearance before CAT could not have been held to be the determinative factor. The High Court should have considered as noted above, the effect of the acquittal. It is also not clear from the records whether the order of CAT directing fresh consideration has been carried out or not. 7. In the peculiar circumstances, we remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration. At the same time it is open to the official respondents to consider whether the contractual appointment of the appellant is to be continued or not in the background facts as highlighted above. We make it clear we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.