JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. These two cross special appeals arises out from the same order in the writ petition No. 3711/1997, which was preferred by the Uttariya Rajasthan Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. against the award made by Labour Court, Bikaner dated 22.11.1995. The Labour Court on finding that retrenchment of the workman Bheem Raj is invalid for having been made in breach of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, he was directed to be reinstated with 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of award. The contention of the employer was that it was a fixed term employment and therefore, provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) were attracting and the termination on service on expiry of the fix term did not amount to retrenchment. This plea of the employer did not find favour with the Tribunal. In view of the fact that the workman has continued in service for almost four years, by successive orders against parrenial nature of works clearly amount to a systematic planning to avoid the protective umbrella of Industrial Disputes Act to be extended to the employer. 2. The appeal of the employer is extended against that part of the order by which the learned Single Judge agreed with the finding that provisions of Section 2(oo)(bb) are not applicable, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Tribunal has found that in the present case work was of the parrenial nature. 3. We are of the opinion that merely writing in the order, a fix term of appointment by itself is not a conclusive proof of the fact that it is a fired term employment. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case whether the employment offered was for a fix term or was only as a device to avoid the applicability of the beneficial provisions of the Industrial Disputs Act ensuring against arbitrary hire and fire principle adopted by the employments (employers). It is always open for adjudicatory body to lift the veil of the real transactions and if it comes to the latter conclusion the provisions of Section 2(00) (bb) could not be attracted. In these circumstances, essentially in each cases this being a finding of fact would not be ordinarily subjected to the judicial review. 4. It is always open for adjudicatory body to lift the veil of the real transactions and if it comes to the latter conclusion the provisions of Section 2(00) (bb) could not be attracted. In these circumstances, essentially in each cases this being a finding of fact would not be ordinarily subjected to the judicial review. 4. The appeal filed by the workman is to the extent the learned Judge has modified the award for advancing the date of payment of 50% -payment w.e.f. the date of reference instead of from the date of termination. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in these appeals. 6. Both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******