JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. Draft amendment is allowed. Petitioner to carry out the amendment forthwith. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge award dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 180 of 1999. 3. The petitioner was, as per his claim before the Court, aggrieved by his termination w.e.f. 20.4.1981 by oral order. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute which culminated into the aforesaid reference. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner herein filed his statement of claim and categorically asserted that his service was terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1981 by oral order. In paragraph 2 of his statement of claim, the petitioner claimed that after the specified period of employment mentioned in his last appointment letter expired on 19.4.1981, he was not continued in employment and any extension was not granted, and any afresh appointment letter was not issued and thereby, his service came to be terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1981. The petitioner claimed that his service was terminated without following procedure prescribed by law and that in terminating his service, the respondent violated Sections 25(F), 25(G) and 25(H). 4. The reference was contested by the respondent Board. In the written statement, the respondent Board claimed that the service of the petitioner was engaged only on temporary and ad-hoc basis from time to time and whenever he was engaged, appointment letters specifying the period for which he was engaged were invariably issued and upon completion of the period of employment specified in the order, his engagement used to come to an end automatically. It was also claimed by the respondent that during his tenure, the petitioner's behaviour and conduct were rude and therefore, at one point of time, he was relieved, however, upon his representation and after he tendered apology, he was again engaged and subsequently when the period of engagement came to an end, he stood relieved. The respondent Board also claimed that the system of engaging employees on work charge basis has been discontinued in respondent Board. 5. After examining the oral and documentary evidence produced by contesting sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was made purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis from time to time by issuing appointment orders which contained categorical stipulation about the period for which the petitioner was being engaged. 5. After examining the oral and documentary evidence produced by contesting sides, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner's appointment was made purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis from time to time by issuing appointment orders which contained categorical stipulation about the period for which the petitioner was being engaged. The Labour Court has also noticed that as and when the specified period came to an end, the petitioner's service also used to come to an end. In view of such findings, the Labour Court concluded that the employment of the petitioner was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that therefore, the provisions under Sections 25(F) and/or 25(G) and/or 25(H) would not be applicable. Having come to such conclusion, the Labour Court has rejected the reference. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Mr. Thakar, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner and vehemently argued that the award is, ex-facie, incorrect, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. Thakar also submitted that the petitioner has been terminated by oral order without following any procedure, though by order dated 27.10.1980 he was inducted in employment in regular manner. The said order dated 27.10.1980 is to be found at page 82 of the paper book of the present petition. 7. Mr. Thaker further submitted that after such appointment, the petitioner was engaged from time to time by the respondent and then, suddenly from 20.4.1981 his service came to be terminated orally. He submitted that the respondent did not conduct any inquiry and/or did not make payment of any compensation before terminating his service. On such grounds, the petitioner has assailed the termination as well as the award of the Labour Court. 8. Despite all vehemence and pains which Mr. Thaker, learned advocate, has shown and taken in arguing the matter, he could not demonstrate and establish how the conclusion of the Labour Court that the engagement of the petitioner was covered within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb), is perverse. Even if, all the allegations of the petitioner were to be accepted, what would emerge is the fact that the petitioner worked at different centres of the respondent Board from time to time and the total tenure of such employment comes to about 6 months ranging from 27.10.1980 to the alleged date of termination i.e. 20.4.1981. Even if, all the allegations of the petitioner were to be accepted, what would emerge is the fact that the petitioner worked at different centres of the respondent Board from time to time and the total tenure of such employment comes to about 6 months ranging from 27.10.1980 to the alleged date of termination i.e. 20.4.1981. In his statement of claim, the petitioner has alleged that the tenure of his last appointment came to an end on 19.4.1981 and thereafter any fresh order of appointment was not issued and/or any extension was not granted. After having made such allegation, the petitioner also alleges that his service was orally terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1981 i.e. the next date. 9. As such, the submissions contradict each other inasmuch as if the period of appointment is not renewed or extended or if any fresh appointment letter is not issued after expiry of earlier appointment order of specified period then, such action cannot be styled as termination by oral order. It would amount to cessation of appointment upon expiry of the specified period of employment and would stand covered within the purview of Section 2(oo)(bb) as rightly held by the Labour Court. 10. Further, what is relevant is the fact that despite repeated queries by the Court, Mr. Thaker could not point out from the entire record of the petition the letter which fixed the period of employment of the petitioner until 19.4.1981. Mr. Thaker has taken this Court through various documents and various appointment letters, however, not a single letter shows that his last appointment was to continue until 19.4.1981. The one letter which came to the notice of this Court during submission of Mr. Thaker is the letter dated 30.3.1981 which shows that his appointment of specified period was to come to an end on 31.3.1981. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to even demonstrate that any appointment order was issued whereby he was to be continued in employment until 19.4.1981. 11. Besides this, another relevant aspect is that the various appointment letters which have been shown on behalf of the petitioner during the submissions are issued by different divisions like Rajkot, Jamnagar, etc. of the respondent Board. 12. It appears from the details on record that the petitioner was getting employed in different divisions from time to time depending upon availability of work in different divisions. of the respondent Board. 12. It appears from the details on record that the petitioner was getting employed in different divisions from time to time depending upon availability of work in different divisions. Such appointments in different divisions cannot be clubbed together so as to claim continuity of service and/or invoke provisions of Sections 25(F) and/or 25(G) and/or 25(H). Even if the contention of the petitioner were to be accepted then also, the fact remains that different divisions of the respondent Board issued appointment letters to the petitioner for specified and limited period and his service used to come to an end from time to time whenever the period specified in the appointment orders came to an end. Hence, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the Labour Court has committed any error in holding that the petitioner's engagement was covered under Section 2(oo)(bb). Once the said position is obtained then the provisions under Section 25(F) and/or 25(G) and/or 25(H) would not influence the cessation of employment on expiry of specified period. Mr. Thaker, despite his best efforts, has not been able to point out any error in the order of the Labour Court or to establish that the Labour Court's award is arbitrary or perverse. 13. In view of the above discussion, the petition fails and the same is disposed of. Petition dismissed.