THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17490 of 1999 Dated:23.01.2008 Between G.Rambai …..Petitioner and 1.Assistant General Manager, (now redesignated as Deputy General Manager),Union Bank of India, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.17490 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the award made in I.D.No.18 of 1998 dated 9.2.1999 on the file of Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the workman and 1st respondent is the employer. It appears that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis from 1.9.1995 and worked till 1.11.1997 in various branches of 1st respondent-Bank. Thereafter, her services were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, she raised a dispute before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). The plea of the petitioner was that she had completed 240 days continuous service preceding the date of her termination, therefore, 1st respondent-Bank has violated the provisions under Section 25 (F) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioner, she herself was examined as WW1 and marked Exs.W1 to W6. On behalf of the respondent-Bank, none were examined and no documents were marked. After a detailed consideration of the entire evidence on record, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly calculated the total number of working days and she has to calculate 240 days in a period of 12 months prior to her disengagement with effect from 2.11.1997 and apart from that as per the decision of the Apex Court, a casual worker cannot have any right over the employment and her disengagement will not amount to retrenchment. Therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is clear that the Labour Court has considered each and every aspect and came to the right conclusion that the petitioner had wrongly calculated the total number of working days and she in fact had not put in 240 days preceding the date of her termination. This is purely a question of fact and no other grounds were raised. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________ 23-01-2008 rkk