-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5893 OF 1997 Omkar Amrut Narnavre : Petitioner V/s. Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.A.G.Toraskar for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Rele i/b. Mr.Piyush Shah for respondent no.1. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Court rejecting his revision and confirming the order of the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai. 2. The petitioner claims that he was a causal unskilled worker in the Maintenance Department for more than two-and-a-half years and that his services were terminated on 10.3.1983 because he refused to wash the tiffin-box of the company’s Engineer. Thereafter, he filed a complaint before the Government Labour Officer and withdrew it, according to him, because of threats given by the Officer of the company. -: 2 :- 3. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has admitted that he was a casual worker and relied on several decisions to come to the conclusion that a casual worker of this nature had no right of employment. The Labour Court observed that the petitioner has himself admitted that he used to be employed as and when work was available to him. 4. The learned Industrial Court who heard the revision filed by the petitioner also came to the same conclusion. 5. Mr.Toraskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service and, therefore, was protected by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is, however, pointed out by Mr.Rele, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, that there are no pleadings to that effect and no evidence either in support of this plea. 6. Indeed, it appears that the petitioner has not pleaded that he has worked for 240 days. He has pleaded that he has worked for two-and-a-half years. There is a palpable difference between these two situations. An employee may have worked over a period of two-and-a-half years without having completed 240 days. There is no evidence to that -: 3 :- effect either. Moreover, the petitioner did not plead that he is protected by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act or that the said Act applies. In this view of the matter, the Courts below rightly held that the petitioner has no right to claim continuous appointment and his employment has automatically come to an end as soon as specified work is over. The Courts below have rightly relied on the decision in Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Brijnanda Pandey & Ors. (1956 (SC) II LLJ 444) and some other decisions which laid down that a casual worker has no right. 7. Accordingly, there is thus no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Rule stands discharged. S.A. BOBDE, J.