JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - According to the petitioner he was appointed as Electrician in the Sub-Division-II of Irrigation Department at Deoria on daily wages. He worked regularly even on holidays. His wages were enhanced in the month of April, 1986 to October, 1986. To his utter surprise he was paid at sum of Rs. 437/- in the months of November and December, 1986 which is the wage of a Beldar in the Irrigation Department. It has been stated that on 12.2.1987 the petitioner was paid only for ten days in the month of January, 1987 and was informed that he was not treated on duty after 10.1.1987. Since 13.2.1987 the petitioner has not been provided any work and his services were terminated without any notice of termination. The petitioner claims that he has worked for more than 240 days within a calendar year and is entitled to the benefits of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Annexure attached to the writ petition is the chart of the days on which the petitioner had worked. According to the petitioner the termination of the petitioner's services tantamount to illegal retrenchment. It has also been emphasised that there are 35 tube-wells in the Division in which the petitioner was employed on daily wages when two posts of Electricians have been sanctioned by the Department, one for permanent electrician and the other for work-charge electrician. According to the petitioner an Electrician appointed on regular basis gets monthly payment of Rs. 900/- whereas the petitioner was paid much less and that the petitioner has not been paid for the work done between 11.1.1987 and 12.2.1987. On the aforesaid allegations, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs; - "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service and to pay his wages till he is revolved from service in accordance with law. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services. (c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the same salary to the petitioner which is fixed for the regular electrician of the department. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services. (c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the same salary to the petitioner which is fixed for the regular electrician of the department. (d) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay wages to the petitioner for the period from 11.1.1987 to 12.2.1987 and continue to pay the same for the period thereafter. (e) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner the wages of Electrician since April, 1986. (f) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the circumstances of the case. (g) to award costs of the petition to the petitioner. 2. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Department through counter-affidavit filed in the case. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it has been staled that the petitioner was not appointed on the post of electrician but he was appointed for the work of electrician on daily wages according to the necessity of work. It has been emphasised that the petitioner was not paid monthly but he was paid for the days he worked. To demonstrate the aforesaid fact, Annexure C.A.I has been attached with the counter affidavit. It has been stated on behalf of the Department that the petitioner was kept on the post of Beldar during the months of November and December, 1986 with his consent and that the petitioner had worked only for ten days in the month of January, 1987. The Department has denied that the petitioner had continuously worked for 240 days in a calendar year. According to the Department there is no post approved for electrician. Therefore, no question of regularisation of the petitioner on the post arises. 3. In rejoinder-affidavit, the allegations made in the counter-affidavit have been denied and the allegations made in the writ petition have been reiterated, and Additional facts have been mentioned in the rejoinder-affidavit to demonstrate the false pleas taken by the Department in the counter-affidavit. 4. Therefore, no question of regularisation of the petitioner on the post arises. 3. In rejoinder-affidavit, the allegations made in the counter-affidavit have been denied and the allegations made in the writ petition have been reiterated, and Additional facts have been mentioned in the rejoinder-affidavit to demonstrate the false pleas taken by the Department in the counter-affidavit. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, we think that the petitioner has not been fairly treated by the Department in the facts and circumstances of this case. The emphasis by the Department in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had not worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year is belied by the chart attached with the counter-affidavit. Bare perusal of the chart would indicate that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year between 21.4.1985 and 31.3.1986. A division bench of this Court in (1989) 2 UPLBEC 144 : Jai Kishan and others v. U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Lucknow and others, has indicated that usual breaks of 2 or 3 days in a month are immaterial in calculating 240 days in a calendar year. Therefore, we think it proper to direct the opposite parties to consider the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law in the light of the aforesaid decision of this Court. 5. In 1986 UPLBC 667, Shailendra Nath Shukla v. Vice Chancellor of Allahabad University and others, a Division Bench of this Court has indicated that the termination of service without paying retrenchment complication or following the procedure provided under law is void which entitles a workman not only to reinstatement but also to a declaration for continuing in service with back wages. In the present case. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been appointed to work for an electrician. There is a dispute whether there is any sanctioned post in the Department or not for absorbing the petitioner on that post. However, this much is evident that the Department needs the services of an electrician to look after 35 tube-wells in the Division. Therefore, a relevant question arises whether the petitioner has been fairly dealt with by the Department in the facts and circumstances of this case, prima facie, we think that the Department has not fairly treated the petitioner. However, this much is evident that the Department needs the services of an electrician to look after 35 tube-wells in the Division. Therefore, a relevant question arises whether the petitioner has been fairly dealt with by the Department in the facts and circumstances of this case, prima facie, we think that the Department has not fairly treated the petitioner. However, disputed questions of fact are involved which cannot be conveniently determined on the basis of the affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit. Therefore, the ends of justice demands that the respondents be asked to redetermine the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the rulings of this court mentioned above and try to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner if he is entitled to the same in law. For the present, we are not probing into the merits of the claim regarding regularisation of the petitioner on the post claimed or for the claim of the pay of an electrician in the Department. We direct the opposite parties to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the rulings of this court and the Highest Court of the country cited before them when the claim of the petitioner is reconsidered by them. However, in view of the allegations made in paragraph 8-A of the rejoinder:affidavit, it is evident that there is no electrician to look after 35 tube-wells in the Division and the farmers of the Division are suffering irreparable loss and sufficient, land remains unirrigated. Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to take work from the petitioner and engage him to render his services as he was doing before 13.2.1987 so that the petitioner may get monthly payment hereafter and maintain his family properly. The petitioner should get the monthly payment as the opposite parties determine after examining the claim of the petitioner in the light of the rulings of this Court indicated above. However, it is made clear that minimum payment to the petitioner should not be less than he was getting in the months of November and December 1986 Rather, his pay should be fixed at least at the amount which is being paid to a Beldar in the Department at present. 6. However, it is made clear that minimum payment to the petitioner should not be less than he was getting in the months of November and December 1986 Rather, his pay should be fixed at least at the amount which is being paid to a Beldar in the Department at present. 6. We hope that the opposite parties shall determine the claim of the petitioner for the reliefs claimed in the writ petition within two months from the date when a certified copy of this order is produced before them. The Department shall not hesitate nor raise any technical objection in engaging the petitioner hence forward within two weeks from the date when a certified copy of this order is produced before them. The petitioner shall be paid his monthly salary or wages regularly hereafter. 7. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and the opposite parties are directed to carry out the spirit of the above observations by employing the petitioner and giving him requisite reliefs to which he is entitled in the eye of law and also due to the observations made above in this judgment. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs.