Judgment B. Prasad, J.-This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the claim of the workman. 2. The appellant workman was employed as a casual, part time worker with the respondent-department. According to the workman, he worked from 01.08.1984 to 01.07.1988 regularly as a part time worker and during this period he had worked for such a period which qualified him to be a workman who could not be retrenched without the compliance of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the workman, by verbal orders, on 01.07.1988 his services were retrenched. Raising a dispute, the workman went to the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after examining the case of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner were a fixed term service, which were regulated by intervals. The last appointment of the petitioner was for 02.04.1988 to 30.06.1988. Thereafter, the term of the appointment were not extended. Since, the appointment was not extended beyond 30th June, 1988 his retrenchment was not found to be hit by Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since, the term of the apointment was not extended and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not held proved. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner was only a part time worker. The work had ceased to exist for a part time worker and, therefore, his services were not extended. It was also observed that in one calendar year, preceding the date of retrenchment, the workman had not completed 240 days and, therefore, also it cannot be said that it was a retrenchment covered by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court. 3. The learned Single Judge, considering the case of the petitioner, observed that the Tribunal has held that the petitioner workman had not completed 240 days in one calendar year, before the date of his termination. The learned Single Judge also observed that the workmans termination was legal and perfect as he was only a part-time casual worker. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred this special appeal before this Court. 4. The learned Single Judge also observed that the workmans termination was legal and perfect as he was only a part-time casual worker. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred this special appeal before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the Courts below had not rightly appreciated the case of the petitioner - appellant. In a case where the term of the employment appears to be a fixed term, the Tribunal is required to lift the veil of the real transaction. If there was a perennial nature of work which amount to a systematic planning, the Tribunal should have gone a little further to appreciate the case. It should not have gone by the order of appointment itself , which had recited that the appointment was a fixed term appointment. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Bheem Raj vs. Uttariya Rajasthan Sahkari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Bikaner and Vice-Versa, 2000 (3) WLN 690. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in K. Rajendran vs. The Director (Personnel), The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi & Anr., 1992 Lab IC 909 where in the Madras High Court has held that if the employee has continued from time to time and has worked for a considerable period, then it is to be seen whether the work is of a perennial nature or not. The appellant has further relied on a case decided by the Allahabad High Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla & Ors. vs. Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University & Ors., reported 1987 Lab IC 1607, wherein it has been held that if an employee is not in a bargaining position, the employment letter should not be held to be conclusive of the terms of the employment. The appellant has further relied on a case of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors., 1985 Lab IC 1733, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under: - “To employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workman. We have no option but to observe that the bank, in this case, has indulged in methods amounting, to unfair labour practice. The plea that the appellant was a badli worker also has to fail.” 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 7. The petitioner-appellant was firstly a casual employee working part-time. He was not on a regular employment. His appointment was not in terms of the rules on which the Department offers employment. His appointment being de hors the rules, and only casual in nature, and was for a fixed term and the term was extended from time to time as is evident from the record, the law relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant would not govern the facts of this case, for the simple reason that where an employee has worked for 240 days is a question of fact which has been held by both the Courts below as against the appellant. Once it has been held against the appellant, it would be too harsh for us to hold a re-appreciation. An employee appointed on a fixed term, if removed in the background that there is no work existing for his employment, then in this background the orders of the Court below are not considered by us to be of such value that they requires interference. More particularly, when there is no work and the appointment of the petitioner was de hors the rules, and then it was a fixed term appointment and the workman had not completed 240 days, no interference is called for. 8. In the result, there is no force in the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.