The main legal point established is that only working days can be counted for the purpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially in the case of a daily-wager.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) enjoins that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for nor less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until the workman has been given one months notice in writing or has been paid in lieu of such period, wages for the period of the notice. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 25-B of the Act, the period of one year when a workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service, would be during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation has to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. The only question in the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 20.8.1996 recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 15541 of 1994 would be as to whether while calculating the period of 240 days, a workman is entitled to include in it the Sundays and other holidays, though he has not been paid for the said days being a daily wager.

2. The facts, on which the question as framed above arises, need to be noticed in the first instance. The workman was employed as daily-wager with the respondent Board in August, 1988. As per his version, he worked from August, 1988 to December, 1988 for certain number of days. He also pleaded that he worked in the year 1989 for the same period, in which year his services were terminated. While complaining violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, he sought reference from the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act which came up for adjudication before the Labour Court, Bathinda. The said Court vide award dated 3.3.1994 found that order of termination of services of the petitioner was not justified nor in order as the same was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. A direction was, thus, issued to the respondent Board to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back-wages only with effect from 8.4.1992. This award of Labour Court was challenged in CWP No. 15541 of 1994, which has since been allowed by learned single Judge vide order dated 20.8.1996. The workman challenges this order of learned single Judge in the present appeal.

3. Order Ex.M-1, which is Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, clearly shows that the workman, who was daily-wager, worked only for 22 days in August, 1988, 27 days in November, 1988,26 days in December, 1988,29 days in January, 1989,6 days in February, 1989, 26 days in March, 1989 and 6 days in April, 1989. The Labour Court, on the basis of Ex.M-1(P-1), calculated that the petitioner had worked for 206 days. It, however, added 34 days to the aforesaid period on finding out that in the period aforesaid, same were either Sundays or other holidays. In the manner aforesaid, it was held that the petitioner had worked for 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the order of termination. It is conceded position that these 34 days were holidays being Sundays or other holidays on which, the workman had, concededly, not worked nor had been paid, being a daily-wager. Further Ex.M-1(P-1) was not questioned at any stage nor is in question before us. That the workman was a daily-wager was also not in dispute. On the facts, as stated above, learned single Judge held us under :

"There is no dispute that the services of the 2nd respondent were terminated on 7.4.1989. Thus, it is clear that the working days mentioned in Annexure P-1 include Sundays and other paid holidays also. Therefore, the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent in Chaggan Lal v. Panchayat Samiti (1990 Labour Industrial Cases 1463), Sudeep Singh Mohan v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Anr., 1989 (1) SLR 443 and the decision of CWP No. 12743 of 1994 (Karnail Singh v. The Labour Court, Patiala) have no applicati