S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against award dated September 14, 1994 given by presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. Agra in adjudication Case No. 43/1983. The matter, which was referred to the Labour Court as to whether action of the petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Rakesh rawat (respondent No. 2 in this writ petition)w. e. f. April 1,1980 was appropriate and legal or not? The Labour Court through impugned award held that termination was illegal. Accordingly, reinstatement with fide back-wages was ordered. Through interim order dated March 29, 1995, passed in this writ petition, execution of impugned award was stayed. ( 3 ) THE case of the workman was that he was in service of the petitioner since July 1, 1976 when he was appointed on the post of peon and he was illegally removed from service on april 1, 1980 without any reason or charge or enquiry. It was also mentioned that no notice or compensation was given to him at the time of termination of services. ( 4 ) THE petitioner employer pleaded that the workman concerned was employed on december 15, 1979 by Administrator of the nagar Mahapalika concerned. His appointment was till March 31, 1980. Thereafter, on March 31, 1980, services were extended with the condition that at any time services could be terminated without any notice as appointment was purely temporary. It was further pleaded that Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order on June 30, 1980 (No. 156) terminating/ directing to terminate the services of all the temporary employees in Nagar Mahapalika. Accordingly, on June 30, 1980, services of the workman concerned were dispensed with. It was further pleaded that thereafter through order of Administrator of Nagar Mahapalika, agra dated September 30, 1980,24 peons were appointed including the workman concerned, that these appointments were made in connection with determination and collection of house tax under quinquennial assessment, that in pursuance of the said order the workman respondent No. 2 joined on October 30, 1980 and all the persons including respondent No. 2 appointed temporarily in connection with quinquennial assessment were removed from the service on March 31, 1981 through order no. 47, dated March 27, 1981 as on March 31, 1981 the work had been completed. 47, dated March 27, 1981 as on March 31, 1981 the work had been completed. ( 5 ) THE Labour Court on the basis of some certificate dated May 5, 1977 produced by the workman held that in the Year 1976-1977 also, the workman had worked on the post of baildar. ( 6 ) IN para-16 of the award, Labour Court clearly held that from the records produced by the employer, it was clear that the workman along with other persons was reappointed on october 1,1980, joined the services on October 30, 1980 and W9rked till March 31, 1981; still the Labour Court held that termination of services on April 1, 1980 was illegal. ( 7 ) AFTER recording finding that the workman had worked till March 31,1981, there was absolutely no sense in holding that termination of service w. e. f. April 1, 1980 was illegal. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is the order dated September 30, 1980 appointing 24 persons temporarily. The name of respondent no. 2 finds place at Serial No. 20. ( 8 ) THE entire thrust of the award of the labour Court is that witness of the employer stated that respondent No. 2 was regular employee. Documents regarding appointment of the respondent No. 2 had been filed, which were found to be genuine by the Labour Court. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the view of the Labour court was patently erroneous in law for three reasons. Firstly, the reference itself became bad as on April 1, 1980, services were not terminated and services were terminated on march 30, 1981. Secondly, respondent No. 2 had not completed 240 days. Thirdly, respondent No. 2 was appointed for a particular job, i. e. preparation/determination of house tax under quinquennial assessment. Such type of appointment automatically comes to an end after the job is over. As far as old services are concerned, even if it is assumed that in the year 1976-1977 petitioner was appointed temporarily, that cannot have any bearing as no evidence was adduced to show that even thereafter the appointment continued. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, I find that the impugned order is utterly erroneous in law and without jurisdiction. Writ petition is therefore allowed/ impugned order is set aside. However, to adjust the equities, I direct the petitioner to pay Rs. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, I find that the impugned order is utterly erroneous in law and without jurisdiction. Writ petition is therefore allowed/ impugned order is set aside. However, to adjust the equities, I direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost to respondent No. 2 within three months failing which 1% per month interest shall be payable upon the said amount. .