JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. — Heard Mr. Shrish Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Indra Makwana, learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

2. We have perused the records and the order impugned in this appeal. The Labour Court has held that the appellant has worked for 240 days. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually incorrect. The appellant has placed material before us and also before the Labour Court that the workman had worked only for 227 days in about four years as per the following description as contained in para 5 of the reply to the statement of claim :-

“December, 19874 days

January, 198827 days

February, 198825 days

March, 198827 days

March, 199023 days

April, 199023 days

May, 199020 days

July, 199018 days

August, 199018 days

December, 199114 days

January, 199224 days

February, 199204 days

Total Days 227 days”

3. The respondent has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year which is the condition precedent for attracting provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This apart, the workman was a casual house assistant who never worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year. As per t