unlawfully. The fact of the matter is that there was exceptionally slow progress of work for which claimant himself was responsible. As is clearly evident from the letters/ documents annexed herewith, the total volume of work executed by the claimant during these 17 months i.e, from 26.04.2005 to 26.09.2006 was only about 18% and the claimant failed on every front in proper execution of the work. Admittedly, there were lack of resources, lack of funds and lack of sincerity in performance of work which ultimately led to his termination of contract. Thereafter, the claimant made fervent requests and representations for being given another chance to make up his shortcomings and after due consideration, the respondent allowed him to have a trial run for 3 fortnights beginning from 12.03.2007. This conditional trial run was subject to certain conditions and assurances on behalf of claimant which the claimant had to undertake in terms of the draft supplementary Agreement which was settled by both the parties. The claimant, after being allowed to go for a trial run, even here he was not serious in starting the work immediately on being given such permission. First he, avoided to accept the letter of communication allowing him to work for this trial period of 45 days and after accepting such communication from the respondent, he further sought time for mobilization of resources at site. Even during execution of work during this trial period, he was continuously reminded of the time frame and the proper execution of work. On completion of this trial period, the claimant withdrew himself from the site and never came forward to perform the balance leftover work of the project. Despite, repeated reminders, the claimant failed to come
