JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner has challenged award dated 7.7.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Kota by which, while holding termination of service of the respondent No. 1, the concerned workman, as illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated with 25% back wages. 2. After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record. 3. The Labour Court on the basis of evidence on record has come to a finding that there has been a clear violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in as much as the compensation had not been paid at the time of termination. Admittedly, the same was offered and paid much after. Though no plea was pressed before the Labour Court in regard to Section 2(oo)(bb), however, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make it a case for fixed term appointment so as to seek protection of Section 2(oo)(bb). The first appointment letter was issued on 14.3.1980 appointing the concerned workman as Junior Assistant for a period of six months. Further extensions were given vide orders dated 23.10.1980 and 16.1.1981 from retrospective dates. The concerned workman was given one month notice on 3.4.1981 on the ground of service no more required. The notice period was to expire on 5.5.1981. However, one month notice period was further extended from time to time upto 30.4.1982 by issuing six separate orders. Without issuing any further extension order the services of the concerned workman were terminated vide order dated 26.5.1982 with immediate effect. From a bare reading of the letters of appointment and directions issued by the petitioner department would show that it was a clear case of unfair labour practice keeping the workman under pressure and tender hook. In absence of any material, no inference even can be drawn to show that the concerned workman was appointed for a particular work for a fixed period. Even after giving one month's notice in regard to the termination of service alleging that ad hoc services no more required, further extensions have been given extending one month's notice period, which clearly shows that the work on which the concerned workman had been employed still continued. There is also no evidence on behalf of the petitioner that the concerned workman was engaged for a particular work and his services were not extended because of completion of the work. There is also no evidence on behalf of the petitioner that the concerned workman was engaged for a particular work and his services were not extended because of completion of the work. The plea of fixed term appointment in the present case appears to be wholly misconceived. 4. Since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the Labour Court in granting appropriate relief to the concerned workman, I find no ground for any further interference of this Court. 5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.Writ petition dismissed. *******