JUDGMENT : 1. Since, both these writ petitions are directed against the award dated 13.08.2019 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Alwar (for brevity “the learned Labour Court”) in LCR No. 30/2009 (CIS No. LCR 811/2014): Devisahay Saini vs. Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Alwar, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order. 2. For ready reference and convenience, the facts are being referred from the file of SB Civil Writ Petition No.21859/2019. 3. The respondent/applicant (for short “the applicant”) filed a statement of claim against the petitioner/non-applicant (for short “the non-applicant”) stating therein that he was appointed as Driver with the non-applicant on 11.11.1998, vide order dated 10.08.2007, his services were terminated and before that, he was being paid consolidated wages @ Rs.1,500/- per month. It was averred that he has rendered services for more than 240 days in every calendar year before the date of termination of his services but, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity “the Act of 1947”) were violated while doing so. It was, therefore, prayed that termination of his services be declared as illegal and invalid and a direction be issued for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 4. The non-applicant, in its reply, submitted that services of the applicant were engaged as Driver on contract basis under the “Community Polytechnic Scheme” (for brevity “the Scheme”) floated by the Human Resources Department, Government of India (for short “the HRD”) which was closed by the HRD vide order dated 30.07.2007 whereupon, services of all the persons including the applicant working on contract/honorarium basis under the Scheme were terminated vide order dated 10.08.2007. It was further submitted that no post of Driver was sanctioned in the office of non-applicant. It was averred that since, services of the applicant came to an end with the closure of the Scheme, the provisions of the Act of 1947 had no applicability. It was, therefore, prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. 5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the claim petition vide its award dated 13.08.2019 whereby, while declaring the order of termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the applicant was held entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 6. 5. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the claim petition vide its award dated 13.08.2019 whereby, while declaring the order of termination to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the applicant was held entitled for a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 6. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the non-applicant submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that since, the services of the applicant were hired on contractual basis under a central scheme and with the closure of the Scheme, his services were terminated alongwith the similarly situated persons, the provisions of the Act of 1947 had no applicability. Relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of H.P. vs. Aswani Kumar & Ors., (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 773 and MD, U.P. Land Development Corporation & Anr. vs. Amar Singh & Ors., (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 388 , he would submit that an employee appointed under a project/scheme has no right to continue once the project/scheme comes to an end. He further submits that the learned Labour Court has unnecessarily been swayed by the fact in its reply to the statement of claim, the non-applicant has stated that the applicant had left the services on his own which, at worst, could have been reckoned as a bonafide clerical error in view of the admitted facts as stated hereinabove. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by it be allowed, the award impugned dated 13.08.2019 be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by the applicant be dismissed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, submitted that despite holding that the order of termination of his services was hit by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, it erred in directing payment of the lump sum compensation instead of his reinstatement in service. He, in support of submissions, relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, Civil Appeal No. 6890/2022 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8393/2022 . He, in support of submissions, relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja vs. Kutchh District Panchayat, Civil Appeal No. 6890/2022 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8393/2022 . He, therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by him be allowed, the award impugned dated 13.08.2019 be quashed and set aside to the extent it directs payment of the lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement and the non-applicant be directed to reinstate him back in service with all consequential benefits. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. Although, in its reply to the claim petition, the non-applicant has averred that the applicant had left the services on his own volition but, from the other contents of the reply as well as the oral as also the documentary evidence available on record, the undisputed position which emerges is that the applicant was appointed under the “Community Polytechnic Scheme” floated by the Human Resources Development, Government of India as Driver on contract basis and vide its letter dated 30.07.2007 (Exhibit MO-4), the Scheme was closed w.e.f. 30.07.2007. The Principals of all the Community Polytechnic were specifically directed under the aforesaid letter to wind up all the ongoing activities under the Scheme with the stipulation that no fresh expenditure should be incurred after 31.07.2007 as the Ministry would not be obliged to release grant under any of the components of the Scheme thereafter. The order dated 10.08.2007 (Exhibit MO-5) reflects that alongwith services of the applicant, services of nine other contractual/honorarium based staff were terminated on account of closure of the Scheme w.e.f. 30.07.2007. Indisputably, the petitioner was not appointed under any written order nor, there was any agreement signed between the parties. 10. In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Labour Court erred in answering the reference in favour of the applicant only on the premise that he was not made aware of the fact that he was appointed under the Scheme or that in its reply, the non-applicant has averred that he had left the services on his own which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was of no consequence. 11. 11. Their Lordships have held in the case of State of H.P. (supra) that when the project is completed and closed due to non- availability of funds, the employees have to go under the closed project and the high Court erred in issuing directions to regularize service of such employees. It was further held that no direction could have been given to create post to a non-existent establishment. 12. Similarly, in the case of MD, U.P. Land Development Corporation & Anr. (supra), it was held that when the project comes to a close, the employees working under the project will not get any vested right and their services also come to an end. 13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid precendential law as also the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation in recording a finding that the applicant had no right to continue in service once the Scheme under which he was employed came to a closure. 14. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant based on the judgment in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja (supra) does not require consideration in view of the aforesaid finding wherein, he has been held not entitled to continue in service after closure of the project. 15. Resultantly, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21859/2019 filed by the non-applicant is allowed and the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20065/2019 filed by the applicant stands dismissed. The award impugned dated 13.08.2019 is quashed and set aside. 16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.