JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 03, 1991 by which the petitioner- respondent's writ petition has been allowed, oral order terminating his service has been set aside and the appellant has been directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages. The facts of the case giving rise to this special appeal may be summerised thus. 2. On November 28, 1989, the petitioner filed writ petition with the averments, in short, as follows. On August 04, 1986, he was employed as a clerk by the Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be called the Bank) on daily wages @ Rs. 20/-. His employment was malafide discontinued by the Bank from time to time. Year-wise details of the employment are as follows: 1986 + 1987 + 1988 + 1989 + Month Days Month Days Month Days Month Days Aug. 27 Feb. 12 Jan. 2 Jan. 31 Sept. 29 March 20 Feb. 21 April 30 Oct. 27 April 29 March 28 May 31 Nov. 24 May 14 April 25 June 14 Dec. 30 July 19 May 30 July 20 Aug. 28 June 25 Sept. 22 July 13 Nov. 16 Aug. 30 Dec. 28 Sept. 5 Oct. 12 Nov. 10 Dec. 27 Total 137 188 228 126 From July, 1987 to June, 1988, he has completed 244 days of service. Payments were made to him through Manager's cheques. Their counter-foils are Annexures 2 (1) to 2 (16). He is not being kept in employment by the Bank after July, 1989. No order in writing terminating his services has been passed. The Bank has violated the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant law. 3. In its reply, the Bank admits that the petitioner worked as a clerk on daily-wages in Surajpole and Laxmi Market branches of the Bank for certain period and counter-foils Annexures 2 (1) to 2 (16) were issued by the said Branches. The remaining averments have been denied. 3. In its reply, the Bank admits that the petitioner worked as a clerk on daily-wages in Surajpole and Laxmi Market branches of the Bank for certain period and counter-foils Annexures 2 (1) to 2 (16) were issued by the said Branches. The remaining averments have been denied. It has further been averred that a person is taken on daily-wages by a Branch Manager when in its branch shortage of staff arises on account of their going on leave or seasonal increase in work, writ petition is not maintainable against a Co-operative Bank, no notice for demand of justice has been given, many disputed questions of fact are involved in this writ petition which can only be resolved by a labour court, periods during which the petitioner worked in said two different branches have not separately been given, employers were the Managers of these two branches and not the appellant-Bank, the petitioner did not work for 240 days or more in any year in one branch, the writ petition is not maintainable as Managers of the branches have not been impleaded as respondents and he has efficacious alternate remedy in the Labour Court. 4. By his order dated April 16, 1990, a learned single Judge framed four questions for authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench. A Full Bench was constituted. By its order dated January 07, 1991, the Ful Bench answered the reference as follows : ''That Sections 10 and 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 don't bar entertainment of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where it does not involve any disputed/complicated question of fact. However, the power/discretion should be exercised with great care and caution.'' Thereafter, the learned single Judge heard the learned counsel for the parties and allowed the writ petition as said above by his impugned order. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-bank that the writ petition was not maintainable as the co-operative society is not a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, Branch Managers who independently employed the petitioner-respondent were not made parties in the writ petition and no notice for demand of justice was given by the petitioner before filing the writ petition. He also contended that the appellant-Bank was not the employer of the petitioner and as such no direction could be issued to it. He also contended that the appellant-Bank was not the employer of the petitioner and as such no direction could be issued to it. He further contended that the petitioner's service was not continuous in any branch, he did not complete 240 days in a year in one branch, as such the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not attracted and disputed questions of fact relating to the periods of service rendered in different branches and as to who employed him were involved in the writ petition. He relied upon Mohammed Ali Hussaini v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 Andhra Pradesh 40 , Surendera Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(3) SCT 498 : AIR 1993 Supreme Court 115 , Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) WLN 92 , Mohan Lal v. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253 , The Managing Director, U.P. Ware-housing Corporation v. Vijay Narain Vajpayee, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 840 , State of Haryana v. Chanan Mal etc., AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1654 and Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, 1992(1) SCT 425(SC) : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 789 . 6. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been held in Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 RLR 365 (DB) that a writ petition is perfectly maintainable against a co-operative society, no notice for demand of justice was necessary, the said branches function under the appellant Bank, the employer of the petitioner was the appellant Bank and not the Branches, the petitioner worked in the two branches of the appellant bank from August 1986 to July 1989, breaks were intentional and malafidely given in the service in order to avoid the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be called that Act) and during the period from July, 1987 to June, 1988 the petitioner had completed more than 240 days and as such the provisions of Section 25-F and the Act were attracted. He lastly contended that Raghuveer Singh Bhati, Managing Director of the appellant Bank has given false affidavit in this special appeal and serious view against him should be taken. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged his termination on the ground of non-compliances of Section 25-F of the Act. He lastly contended that Raghuveer Singh Bhati, Managing Director of the appellant Bank has given false affidavit in this special appeal and serious view against him should be taken. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has challenged his termination on the ground of non-compliances of Section 25-F of the Act. Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Act runs as under:- ''25-B. Definition of continuous service - For the purposes of this Chapter, - (1) a workman shall said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer - (a) for the period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than - (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than - (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. Explanation. Explanation. - For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which - (i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (iv) in the case of a females, she has been on maternity leave; so however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.'' 25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. - No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until - (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification is the official Gazette.'' 8. The petitioner's case is that he had served the appellant Bank from August, 1986 to July, 1989. He has averred in para No. 3 of his writ petition that ''the Bank mala fidly discontinued his employment from time to time to avoid the application of the concerned laws''. In para No. 4 he has further averred ''the Bank has mala fidely gave breaks in his employment to avoid the application of the relevant law.'' In para No. 5, he has further averred ''the Bank has malafidely created artificial breaks in his employment''. In para No. 4 he has further averred ''the Bank has mala fidely gave breaks in his employment to avoid the application of the relevant law.'' In para No. 5, he has further averred ''the Bank has malafidely created artificial breaks in his employment''. From these averments, it is clear that the petitioner was not in the continuous service from August, 1986 to July, 1989 within the meaning of Section 25-B (1) of the Act. His case is that this was malafide done by the employer (Bank). No particulars of malafides have been given in the writ petition. It is well settled law that the allegations regarding malafides must be specifically stated and proved on the strength of adequate evidence and vague allegations of mala fides are not entertained. Reference of M/s. Sukhvinder Pal Vipin Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 65 and Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 872 , may be made here. It has specifically been averred in para No. 7 of the reply by the Bank that a person is taken on daily wages by a Branch Manager only when in that particular branch staff shortage arises due to inordinately large number of staff or regular establishment going on leave or seasonal increase of work is felt. The petitioner did not file his rejoinder. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the breaks were given in the petitioner's service with malafide intention. Thus the services of the petitioner from August, 1986 to July, 1989 was not continuous within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 35-B of the Act. 9. Now the question arises whether the petitioner's service was continuous within the meaning of Section 25-B (2) of the Act. This sub-section provides that where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of sub- section (1) for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under employment for a period of one year if he during the period of 12 calendar months just preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, he has actually worked under that employer for not less than 240 days. Reference of Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253 , may be made here. Reference of Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1253 , may be made here. Petitioner's case is that he served for 20 days in JUly, 1989 and thereafter, he was not taken in service. The relevant date will be the date of termination of service i.e. a date in between July 21, 1989 to July 31, 1989. Commencing from that date and counting backward for a year, it is found that he worked only for 210 days and not for 240 days even according to the following details given in para No. 3 of the writ petitions. 1988 + 1989 + August 30 January 31 September 5 April 30 October 12 May 31 November 10 June 14 December 27 July 20 Total 84 Total 126 = 210 days For the purpose of section 25-B (2), period from July, 1987 to June, 1988 is not relevant as it is not the case of the petitioner that his service was terminated in June or July, 1988. Admittedly, his case is that it was terminated in July, 1989. It is thus clear that the petitioner's service was not continuous for one year or more within the meaning of section 25-B of the Act. When it is so, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act are not attracted. The verbal termination of the petitioner in July, 1989 is not against the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to decide the other questions involved in this case. 10. Before parting with the case it may be mentioned here that the Managing Director of the appellant-Bank Raghuveer Singh Bhati has given false affidavit in this Court on 09.04.93. Relevant portions of his affidavit are as follows : 2 eSus lqfuy dqekj 'kekZ dks gsM vkfQl esa vFkok fdlh czkap esa tqckuh vFkok fyf[kr :i esa fdlh in ij fu;qDr ugha fd;k vkSj uk gh fdlh czkap eSustj dks mls fu;qDr djus ds fy;s vuqefr gh nh FkhA 3 & &&&&&&&&&&&&& bl izdkj czkap eSustj us fcuk esjh Lohd'fr ds lqfuy dqekj 'kekZ dks vxj nSfud osru in ij j[kk rks vuf/kdr FkkA On 09.07.93, the petitioner filed a photostat copy of his application dated 20.10.86 (Annx. 10) alongwith his additional affidavit in this Court. 10) alongwith his additional affidavit in this Court. This photostat copy has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank on 26.08.93. A note to this effect has been given by him on it. On this application, Shri Raghuveer Singh Bhati has given in his own hand the following note : LM Br. budks ,d ekg ds fy;s j[kk tk;s A n0 j?kqohj HkkVh Manager, Pali Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Surajpole Branch, Pali has filed photostat copies of certain letters and applications of candidates alongwith his affidavit in this Court. All these photostat copies bear certain notes in the handwriting of Shri Raghuveer Singh Bhati. These photostat copies have also been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank. Similar notes to the said effect have been given on them by him. They also go to prove that Shri Bhati gave instructions to the Branches for employing candidates. Thus the aforesaid averment of the affidavit is false. To say the least, it is not expected from a man of the status of a Managing Director of a Central Co- operative Bank that he would give such a false affidavit. 11. Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 03.04.91 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. *******