Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 11.2.2013, whereby respondent No. 2/workman has been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service but without back wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 2/workman had worked for 233 days, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short 'the Act'] were not attracted. However, the Tribunal has added the rest days including Sundays and made it more than 240 days to apply Section 25F of the Act. It is submitted that the workman has himself admitted that he had been paid wages being a daily wager for the days he had actually worked. He has also admitted that he had been paid Rs. 68/- per day and if the said wages is multiplied with the days he had worked, it comes to 233 days. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1 and Another, (2013) 1 LLJ 447

2. In reply to this argument, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/workman has submitted that MW1 has stated that the daily-wa