1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 5578/2007 Udai Lal Vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Udaipur & Anr. ......... Date of Order : 02/02/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. K.R.Choudhary for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award Annex.P-9 dated 10.2.2006 passed by respondent No.1, Judge, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Udaipur (for short 'the Labour Court' hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent-employer though served. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Labour Court fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed 240 days and 2 has failed to take into account the Sundays and State Govt. holidays while computing the period of 240 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kishan Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2006 Lab. I.C. 56. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that on the industrial dispute being raised by the petitioner, the State Govt. by notification dated 9.8.2000 made a reference to the respondent Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner with effect from 11.06.1998 was valid and proper or not. A statement of claim was filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court stating therein that he has completed 241 & ½ days including six State holidays and Weekly holidays i.e. 41 Sundays totalling to 282 & ½ days in a calendar year. The petitioner workman filed an affidavit in support of his claim. As against the case of the workman, the respondent filed a reply and placed on record the vouchers showing month and number of working days and the wages paid. According to the respondent employer, the petitioner completed 231 & ½ days rounding up to 232 days from September, 1997 to June 1998 and according to the respondents, the petitioner fall short by 8 days in completing 240 days. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan Gurjar 3 Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) held that it is settled proposition of law that the calculation of working days by employer, excluding Sundays, is taint of malice and Sundays should be counted as actual working days for the purpose of calculating 240 days. In the instant case, if the Sundays are taken into consideration which come to 41, then the period for which the petitioner workman has worked in a calendar year is more than 240 days i.e. 280 & ½ days. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court fell in error in computing the period for which the petitioner workman worked with the employer and therefore, the impugned award cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The award impugned Annex.9 dated 10.02.2006 is set aside and it is held that the petitioner workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year and terminating the services with effect from 11.6.1998 without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is bad in law, illegal and invalid and therefore, the petitioner workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and with 25% back wages from the date of reference. No costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp