JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. P. K. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited my attention to pars-3 of the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner has, worked on daily wages from 14.5.88 to 4.1.1989. He submits that this fact has been admitted by the respondents in their reply to Para 3 of the writ petition. 3. Mr. Singhvi disputes this position and submits that it is only a typing error. In fact, in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has worked only upto December, l988. 4. Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited me attention to the provisions of Section-25.B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has submitted that in the case of Workmen of American Express International Corporation v. Management of American Express AIR 1986 SC 458 , their Lordship of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that Sundays and other paid holiday can be taken into account for the purpose of continuous service. Their Lordships have also discussed the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. Management of Gabrith Electrical Company, reported in AIR 1981 SC 852 . Mr. Sharma further submits that his client has worked for more than 240 days if the Sundays and holidays are included. 5. Mr. Soral and Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondents submitted that the petitioner was a casual labour. It was further submitted that the holidays and Sundays cannot be included is the petitioner has not actually worked. Both the counsel submitted that the words 'actual work' should he interpreted in its correct form ; that means a worker has worked actually on that date and has not remained on leave or holiday. 6. This Court in the case of Murari Lal v. R S. R. T. C. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1070/88) decided on 7-12-88 , has also held that the Sundays and holidays can be included as the days actually worked. It seems that there is a typical error in para-3 of the reply and the reply needs correction. 7. Additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents and they have given the details of the days on which the petitioner has worked. According to the respondents, the petitioner has worked only for 166 days. 8. It seems that there is a typical error in para-3 of the reply and the reply needs correction. 7. Additional affidavit has been filed by the respondents and they have given the details of the days on which the petitioner has worked. According to the respondents, the petitioner has worked only for 166 days. 8. I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the respondents, that the petitioner was a casual labour. Casual labour ordinarily means that the labour appointed or engaged for an unanticipated work just like flood or any other natural disaster. If the work is a planned work and it is anticipated only then the said planned work cannot he considered a casual work and the persons appointed to perform such duties on such work cannot be said a casual labour. Planned work and anticipated work may be a work of temporary nature and temporary appointment can be given for the performance of such work. In such cases, where the bridges are going to be constructed after due planing, roads are being constructed after due planning and Housing Board is constructing the houses after due planning it cannot he said that such work is a casual work. In such circumstances, I am of the view that whenever there is a planned work like construction of roads, buildings etc. then any labour appointed for the performance of that work cannot be said to be a casual labour. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has worked as 4th Class employee in the Ajmer University for more than six months and such work cannot be said to be of a casual nature. Nothing has been said even in the reply as to how the work was not anticipated and how they are treating the petitioner as a casual labour. The contention about the casual labour do not find force with me and I, hereby rejected. 10. The next contention of Mr. Soral and Mr. Singhvi is that the respondents cannot claim the benefit of holidays and Sundays. University is a State under Article-12 and the persons working in the University regularly can claim the benefit just like other employees of Gazetted Holidays and Sundays. Ordinarily, a person cannot be compelled to work throughout the week. 10. The next contention of Mr. Soral and Mr. Singhvi is that the respondents cannot claim the benefit of holidays and Sundays. University is a State under Article-12 and the persons working in the University regularly can claim the benefit just like other employees of Gazetted Holidays and Sundays. Ordinarily, a person cannot be compelled to work throughout the week. He must get at least Sunday as rest day and this, will also apply to the temporary worker who has worked in the University and the temporary worker is also entitled for the benefit of holidays. 11. I have gone through the writ petition. Mr. Sharma has nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that the petitioner has not been paid the salary of holidays or Sundays. He has mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition that the petitioner has worked for more than 235 days. This argument has been raised during the course of arguments and the same does not find place in the writ petition. 12. Apart from that Mr Singhvi has filed an additional affidavit on behalf of the respondent. and has tried to convince the Court that the petitioner has worked only for 180 days. This is a disputed question of fact. Respondents are directed to calculate holidays and Sundays available to the petitioner and add them in the Working days and, if after adding the Sundays and holidays in actual working days of the petitioner, the respondents find the petitioner has worked for 240 days, then the respondent will give due relief to the petitioner including the relief which is available as reinstatement, back wages etc. from the date of filing of the writ petition. In cages the respondents find that even after adding Sundays and holidays 240 days are not completed then the respondents will not be liable to give any relief to the petitioner. In that case. the petitioner may raise industrial dispute before the concerned authority under the industrial law and the authority concerned will decide the disputed questions of facts according to law. 13. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******