JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - These are three petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal upholding the workmens claim for treating half-working day as full day for the purposes of computing annual leave under S. 79 of the Factories Act. 2. The workmen of six textile mills of Cawnpore including Messrs Elgin Mills, Cawnpore, Textiles Limited and Swadeshi Cotton Mills raised disputes in respect of two matters. Firstly, they claimed that three national holidays and two festivals holidays should be treated as working days in calculating the period of 240 days entitling the workmen ta annual leave with wages under S. 79 of the Factories Act. Secondly, they claimed that half days working of the mills should be treated as full day while calculating 240 days for the purposes of computing annual leave with wages under S. 79 of the Factories Act. The State Government referred these two matters for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow under six different orders. The employers as well as the workmen contested the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the festivals and national holidays could not be treated as working days while computing 240 days working days under S. 79 of the Factories Act, The Tribunal, however, answered the second question in favour of the workmen and held that half working day of mills should be counted as full day in computing 240 days for the purposes of determining the annual leave with wages under S. 79 of the Factories Act. Aggrieved the employers of the three mills, namely, M/s. Elgin Mills Co., M/s. Cawnpore Textiles Ltd. and M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills have filed these three petitions challenging the award of the Tribunal. 3. Section 79 of the Factories Act provides for the grant of annual leave with wages to workmen employed in the factories and industrial establishments It, further, provides method for computation of the annual leave with wages The relevant part of S. 79 of the Factories Act is in the following terms : "79. 3. Section 79 of the Factories Act provides for the grant of annual leave with wages to workmen employed in the factories and industrial establishments It, further, provides method for computation of the annual leave with wages The relevant part of S. 79 of the Factories Act is in the following terms : "79. Annual leave with wages - (1) Every worker who has worked for a period of 240 days or more in a factory during calendar year shall be allowed during the subsequent calendar year, leave with wages for a number of days calculated at the rate of - (i) if an adult, one day for every 20 days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year; (ii) if a child, one day for every 15 days of work performed by him during the previous calendar year: Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this sub-section - (a) any days of lay-off, by agreement or contract or as permissible under the Standing Orders; (b) in the case of a female worker, maternity leave for any number of days not exceeding twelve weeks; and (c) the leave earned in the year prior to that in which the leave is enjoyed; shall be deemed to be days on which the worker has worked in a factory for the purposes of computation of the period of 240 days or more, but he shall not earn leave for these days. Explanation 2. - The leave admissible under this sub-section shall be exclusive of all holidays whether occurring during or at either end of the period of leave." 4. The above provision lays down that a workman who has worked for a period of 240 days or more in a factory during the previous calendar year shall be entitled to annual leave with wages in the subsequent year. The period of leave is calculated in the manner prescribed in the section. An adult workman is entitled to one days leave with wages for every 20 days of work, while a child workman is entitled to one days leave for every 15 days of work. The Explanation to the section provides that if the employers declare lay-off, as a result of which a workman is not able to perform his duties in the mills, the period of lay off shall be counted as a working day in computing 240 working days. The Explanation to the section provides that if the employers declare lay-off, as a result of which a workman is not able to perform his duties in the mills, the period of lay off shall be counted as a working day in computing 240 working days. Similarly, in the case of a female worker, maternity leave not exceeding 12 weeks shall also be taken into account as working day in computing 240 days. A workman is to get leave in subsequent year when he has worked for a period of 240 days or more in the factory during the previous calendar year. 5. The question which arises for consideration is as to when a workman is said to have worked for a period of 240 days. Does it include half day working of the Mill ? The Factories Act, 1948, regulates the conditions of employment in factories and industrial establishments, it restricts the working hours of the employees. According to S. 51 of the Act no adult worker shall be allowed to work for more than 48 hours in any week. Sections 52 and 53 provide for holidays. According to S. 54 no adult employee is required or allowed to Work in a factory for more than nine hours in a day and nine hours work in a day is the maximum period of work presumably under the Act. According to cl. (e) of S. 2 `day means a period of 24 hours beginning at midnight. Section 61 provides that there shall be displayed a notice of periods of work for adults showing clearly for every day the period during which adult workers may be required to work. Section 63 lays down that "no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of period of work for adults displayed in the factory. "In the background of these provisions `a day means period of work as mentioned in the notice displayed under S. 61 of the Act. In this context the expression `a period of 240 days or more means that a workman must have worked for 240 working days having regard to the hours of work he is required to put in according to the notice displayed under S. 61 of the Act. 6. In this context the expression `a period of 240 days or more means that a workman must have worked for 240 working days having regard to the hours of work he is required to put in according to the notice displayed under S. 61 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that unless a workman completes full nine hours work that day could not be considered as a working day. If he works for half a day he would not be completing a full days work. In calculating 240 days the actual hours of work put in by a workman should be taken into account. He placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Shamker Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1962 SC 517 ). The Supreme Court while considering S. 79 of the Act observed (at p. 523): "It is urged for the State that each day on which Pandurang worked, whatever be the period of time that he worked, would count as one day of work for the purpose of this section. We do not agree with this contention. When the section provides for leave on the basis of the period of working days, it must contemplate a definite period of work for working day and not any indefinite period for which a person may like to work on any particular day." 7. The above observations were made by the Supreme Court in rejecting the claim of workmen employed for the purpose of manufacturing Bidis. In that case, the concerned workman (Pandurang) was not bound to work for the period of work displayed in the factory, and, therefore, his days of work for the purposes of S. 79 could not be calculated. The Supreme Court did not accept the contention that hours of work put by workmen in a day should be taken into account in calculating 240 days. On the contrary the Supreme Court emphasised that while computing leave on the basis of period of working days under S. 79 of the Factories Act. the period of work as displayed on the notice board for a working day is the criteria and should be taken into account in computing the working days. While calculating 240 working days it is not open to the employers to split the hours of work of each day. the period of work as displayed on the notice board for a working day is the criteria and should be taken into account in computing the working days. While calculating 240 working days it is not open to the employers to split the hours of work of each day. If this is permitted serious consequences would ensue in matters relating to the bonus, gratuity and leave etc. In our opinion, a working day means the hours of work displayed on the Notice Board under S. 61 of the Act. Working days cannot be split in terms of working hours. If the petitioners contention is accepted, it would certainly be against the legislative intent. 8. Learned counsel then argued that if working days are split in terms of working hours serious consequences would ensue. He submitted that a workman would attend his work only for four hours and thereafter he may take leave and even then he may claim full days work for the purpose of S. 79 of the Act. This would encourage absenteeism by the workmen. We are not inclined to accept this contention. A workman must complete the prescribed hours of work as notified under S. 61 of the Act, only then that day would be counted for the purpose of leave. The true test is that a workman must be willing to work for the prescribed hours of work in a day. If he takes leave for half a day he would not be completing a full working day but if the workman is willing to work for the entire prescribed hours, and if the employers close the mill or the factory for some reason or the other the workman should not be made to suffer on that account. If employers open the factory for half a day only in that event the workmen would be entitled to full days work even though they may have worked for half a day. Explanation to S. 79 (1) of the Act clearly lays down that days of lay-off shall be deemed to be days on which the workman has worked in the factory for the purpose of computation of period of 240 days. The purpose of counting the days of lay-off as working days indicates that during the period of lay-off the workmen are willing to work but the employers do not open their factories. The purpose of counting the days of lay-off as working days indicates that during the period of lay-off the workmen are willing to work but the employers do not open their factories. The legislative intent is thus clear that if a workman is willing to work for the prescribed hours of work but he is not allowed to complete the same on account of some action of the employers, he would be entitled to full days work. We are therefore of the opinion that half, day working of the mills should be counted as full day for the purposes of I computation of period of 240 days. 9. The Factories Act was enacted for the welfare of the workmen employed in factories and industrial establishments. It is a beneficial legislation. In construing the provisions of a welfare legislation Courts should adopt a beneficent rule of construction; if a section is capable of two constructions, the Court should prefer that construction which would further the policy of the Act and is more beneficial to the employees for whose benefit the Act may have been enacted. (See Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. The Workers, AIR 1961 SC 647 ). In this background of these principles we have interpreted S. 79 of the Act in a manner which will advance the purpose of the Act. The Tribunal has also held that half day working of the mills should be considered as a full day for the purposes of computing 240 days under S. 79 of the Act. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The interpretation which we have taken is further supported by the practice followed by the other textile mills of Kanpur, e.g. the Muir Mills of Kanpur, where half days working of the Mill is counted as full day for the purpose of computing 240 days under S. 79 of the Act. 10. In view of the above discussion, we find no illegality in the impugned award of the Tribunal. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall pay costs of this petition to the respondents.