Hon'ble SHALLA, CJ.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.8.2001 whereby the writ petition of the appellant-Bank was dismissed while upholding the award passed by the Labour Court.

2. It is a case where a dispute was raised by the non-appellant-workman, regarding his termination/discontinuation from service w.e.f. 26.11.1993 and not to consider his case for regular appointment. It was stated that non. appellant-workman was initially engaged from 3.10.1989 till 12.10.1990 in Dabi branch of the Bank followed by engagement in Rampura branch for 55 days, 2 days in Gulabpura branch and thereafter in Jhalawar Road branch. The workman-employee was thereafter engaged from 8.12.1992 to 7.11.1993 in Dabi branch and thereafter from 8.11.1993 to 26.11.1993 in Jhalawar Road branch. The dispute was raised alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short' the Act') as well as violation of Rules 77 of the Rules. A claim for regular appointment was also made by the workman-employee non-appellant (for short the workman). A reply to the statement of claim was filed stating that the workman-employee was lastly engaged in Jhalawar branch where he had not worked for 240 days in a year, therefore, claim of the workman-employee was denied in all respects. The plea of the appellant was that the workman concerned was engaged for a particular period as daily rated employee, thus his services come to an end with the expiry of the period, hence, it does not fall within the definition of retrenchment' as provided under Section 2(oo) of the Act.

3. Learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that before termination of the services of the workman concerned, he had worked for 240 days in a year and as provisions of Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with, termination/discontinuation of the workman-employee becomes illegal and accordingly order of reinstatement with back wages with other benefit was passed.

4. The writ petition was filed against the impugned award of the learned Labour Court stating that the total period of service in Jhalawar road branch was only of 14 days and learned Labour Court should not have counted workman's service in other branches. Hence, for drawing the conclusion regarding working for 240 days in a year, the working in other branches has wrongly been taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspect and taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 2511/1991 dated 1.10.1991 came to the conclusion that if workman had worked in various sub divisions, the plea that the workman has not worked in a particular sub division for a period of more than 240 days, cannot be accepted. Similarly, a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Central Industrial Tribunal was also referred. Learned Single Judge had not accepted the plea of non-clubbing of the working days in different branches/sub divisions.

5. Learned counsel for appellant-Bank submits that workman was engaged by the different branches independently from time to time and he being daily rates wages, his services should not be clubbed. Elaborating the facts, it is stated that even if the statement of the claim is looked into, the employee-workman had come with the case that he was engaged indifferent branches of the appellant-Bank from time to time. In view of the said statement of claim, the only fact remains for determination is as to whether working of the workman under different branches can be clubbed to reckon it to be continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act. It is stated that engagement of the workman on daily rate basis is by the branches concerned and in view of that, Branch Manager becomes the employer and thereby workman having worked in different branches, working in each branch has to be taken separately. Merely for the reason that the controlling authority i.e. Regio