T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the effect that his termination of service which was in breach of the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, be set aside. The requisite averments with regard. to the period of service i. e. , 240 days in one calendar year are contained in Para 3 of the petition. This para reads as under :"that the petitioner worked under respondent for the period mentioned below : (a) From 16. 7. 86 to 12. 10. 86 in the branch Nayagaon of respondent. (b) As per order dated 22. 10. 86 under the signature of Shri p. B. Shitole, who was the chairman of respondent bank, the petitioner worked for the period 27. 10. 86 to 25. 11. 86 in Surpura branch of respondent bank. Thereafter, petitioner also worked for the period 27. 11. 86 to 23. 2. 1987. The Chairman had given specific instructions to the branch manager Surpura to keep the petitioner only for 89 days. (c) Petitioner also worked in branch Barahi for the period 28. 3. 1987 to 24. 6. 87. (d) Thereafter, Shri D. B. Shitole gave a letter to Shri Khan, Branch Manager to keep the petitioner on daily-wages basis at Rs. 10/-per day if he agrees for the same. Petitioner being in need of the bread and butter, was forced by circumstances to agree upon the terms which are un-conscionable and against the public policy in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act and against the principles of distributive justice as the principles laid down in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath, 1986 (2) Lab. IC 1312 As per the abovesaid letter, the petitioner worked from 1st July 1987 to 31st July 1987. " ( 2 ) THE reply given by the respondent Bank is vague. It has only been stated that the petition worked as a clerk and Safai Karmchari on daily wages for sometime. The reply reads as under :"that para 2 and 3 are not correct. The petitioner did not work as a clerk-cum-cashier in the respondent-Bank as mentioned in these paras. It has only been stated that the petition worked as a clerk and Safai Karmchari on daily wages for sometime. The reply reads as under :"that para 2 and 3 are not correct. The petitioner did not work as a clerk-cum-cashier in the respondent-Bank as mentioned in these paras. The petitioner worked temporarily on daily wages basis for sometime in various branches as a clerk and as a temporary part time Safai Karmachari in the Bhind branch on Rs. 10/-per day. " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. , 1991 (2) MPJR 256 to content that where is breach of Section 25 (F) of the Act then a writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking the respondents to re-instate the workman. In this view of the matter the contention of the petitioner that writ jurisdiction can be exercised in this case is upheld. ( 4 ) SO far as the contention that the services of the petitioner were contrary to the Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, it is again patent. The averments have not been denied. The petitioner had complete 240 days in one calendar year. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Moneyt (1976) 1 SCC 822 , ( AIR 1976 SC 1111 ), the termination of services of the petitioner is not justified. ( 5 ) THE petitioner is only entitled to re-instate and his claim for back-wages cannot be entertained. Under writ jurisdictions there is no procedure for determining as to whether petitioner was gainfully employed or not. This could be done only by the Industrial Court. ( 6 ) A direction is accordingly given to the respondent bank to re-instate the petitioner but he would not entitle to any back-wages. .