1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Mr. P. K. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention to pars-3 of the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has, worked on daily wages from 14.5.88 to 4.1.1989. He submits that this fact has been admitted by the respondents in their reply to Para 3 of the writ petition.

3. Mr. Singhvi disputes this position and submits that it is only a typing error. In fact, in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has worked only upto December, l988.

4. Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited me attention to the provisions of Section-25.B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has submitted that in the case of Workmen of American Express International Corporation v. Management of American Express AIR 1986 SC 458 , their Lordship of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that Sundays and other paid holiday can be taken into account for the purpose of continuous service. Their Lordships have also discussed the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Management of Gabrith Electrical Company, reported in AIR 1981 SC 852 . Mr. Sharma