Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in a reference made to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was at the instance of the Petitioner workman. The impugned award has rejected the reference.

2. The Petitioner's case in his statement of claim was that he was engaged in the activity of manufacturing and supplying electric power in the Respondent establishment between 5 March 1978 and 12 June 1995. During this period, he claimed to have continuously worked with the Respondent, though the company used to give artificial breaks for denying him permanency benefits. He claimed that his services were terminated on 12 June 1995 without giving any charge-sheet or conducting any enquiry or even following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, accordingly, claimed reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service with effect from 12 June 1995. It was the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner was working intermittently during the period from 5 March 1978 to 12 June 1995 on specific projects and on specific orders of appointment an