JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This is petition of workman against the award of Industrial Tribunal, dated 17-3-1982 awarding back wages to the workman with effect from 1-7-1979 to 31-3-1980 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month but refusing the re-instatement of the petitioner/the workman. The writ petition was dismissed on 21-3-1991 after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents in the open court put the reasons were to follow. These are the reasons. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Accountant on 7-11-1975 in the scale of Rs. 230-385 and worked continuously on that post till 30-11-1976. Thereafter he was again appointed on that post on a consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month on 22-3-1978 and worked as such till 30-6-1979. On 1-7-1979 petitioner's services were terminated without paying him compensation as required by Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short the Act). Ultimately reference was made by the State Government under Section 4 (k) of the Act to the effect whether termination of petitioner's services under Section 6 (N) of the Act was illegal. After affording parties opportunity to legal evidence impugned award has been given. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner has completed more than 240 days in a calender year therefore he became permanent employee and he is liable to be reinstated. It was further urged that after termination of the petitioner an other person has been employed in place of the petitioner and no compensation as required under Section 6-N of the Act has been given to the petitioner therefore order of termination is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that although petitioner worked from time to time on ad hoc basis but under the Rules regular vacancies could only be filled in with the approval of the Co-operative Institutional Services Board (for short the Board) and in 1979 competitive test was held according to Rules for regular appointment but since by that time petitioner became overage he could not be called for test and consequently he could not be appointed on regular basis. 5. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that as the petitioner was appointed at various occasions for limited periods on ad hoc basis and he worked for 240 days with breaks, so he was entitled to compensation only till 30-6-1979 and he has been correctly awarded compensation, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and back wages till 30-6-1979. 6. As regards re-instatement of the petitioner, since he was never appointed on regular basis as under the Rules same was not possible without approval of the Board and that at the time of recruitment on regular basis, petitioner was not eligible being over age, therefore petitioner is not entitled to re-instatement. There is no error in the impugned award consequently writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order dated 25-7-J.988 discharged.