JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, they are taken up together for disposal. The appellant is the writ petitioner, who challenged before the writ Court the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, whereby after holding the termination to be void ab initio, it ordered the reinstatement of the respondents with all consequential benefits. 2. The award had been assailed on the ground that the same was based on surmises and conjectures and had been passed without application of mind because once the project had come to an end the Labour Court could not have passed direction for reinstating the respondents. 3. The learned writ Court dismissed the petition by holding that despite number of opportunities afforded to the appellant by the Labour Court, it had led no evidence, therefore, the impugned award called for no interference. In so far as the question regarding closure of project is concerned, it was categorically observed that these submissions could not be entertained firstly because there was no evidence on record and secondly that Tribunal had given a categoric finding that the workmen junior to the respondents had been retained in service, which fact belied the stand of the appellant. 4. The appellant has filed the present appeals mainly challenging the findings on the ground as taken in the memorandum of appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that fence the project had been closed, the Tribunal below could not have been directed the reinstatement of the respondents in view of the applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that fence the project had been closed, the Tribunal below could not have been directed the reinstatement of the respondents in view of the applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(oo)(bb) reads as follows:- "2 (oo) retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or 2 (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein." 6. It is more than settled that if temporary or ad hoc engagement or appointment is in connection with a particular project or a specific scheme, the ad hoc or temporary service of persons employed under the project or scheme would come to an end on completion/closure/cessation of the project or scheme. The fact that the Scheme had been in operation for some decades or that the employee concerned has continued on ad hoc basis for one or two decades would not entitle the employee to seek permanency or regularization. On completion of the project or discontinuance of the scheme, those who are engaged with reference to or in connection with such project or scheme cannot claim any right or to continue in service, nor seek regularization in some other project or service. (See Bhagwan Dass and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 634 , Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 , Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees' Union, Hyderabad and another etc. etc., (1995) 3 SCC 474 , M.D., U.P. Land Dev. Corpn. and Another Vs. Amar Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2357 , Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 , Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees' Union, Hyderabad and another etc. etc., (1995) 3 SCC 474 , M.D., U.P. Land Dev. Corpn. and Another Vs. Amar Singh and Others, AIR 2003 SC 2357 , Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and others etc., (2005) 5 SCC 122, Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 , Indian Council of Medical Research and Others Vs. K. Rajyalakshmi, (2007) 2 SCC 332 , Lal Mohammad and Others Vs. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and Others, (2007) 2 SCC 513 and Md. Abdul Kadir and Another Vs. Director General of Police, Assam and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 611 . However, in the instant case save and except for the bald assertion that the project had come to an end, the appellant failed to produce and prove on record this fact. Rather it has come on record that juniors to the respondents had been retained in service. Once it is so, the very basis and foundation of the plea raised by the appellant regarding closure of the project is demolished. No other point urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no illegality or infirmity with the order passed by the learned writ Court and accordingly these appeals being devoid of any merit are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the file of connected matter.