JUDGMENT 1. - It is well settled that High Court can not assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For intervention there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice or where order of court below has resulted in grave injustice. 2. Labour Court Bharatpur in the award, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition, has declared the termination of respondent workman illegal and directed that he be reinstated in the service with all consequential benefits. 3. Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner employer canvassed that the respondent workman did not work 240 days in one calendar month (sic year). He had only worked for 205 days in all, details of which had been given in the document Annexure-2 filed before the Labour Court. Sundays and other holidays ought not to have been taken into account. Reliance was placed on Bajrang Lal v. Assistant Engineer ]. 4. Admittedly the workman had worked from August 1, 1989 till March 30, 1990. The petitioner employer in the document Annexure-2 did not count the Sundays and other holidays. According to this document the workman had worked only for 26 days in each month from August 1989 to January 1990 and 24 and 25 days respectively in Feb. 1990 and March 1990. Thus 205 working days were calculated. In Bajrang Lal v. A.E.N. (supra) it was held that Sundays and other holidays can be counted in 240 days only if the workman is paid or is entitled to be paid wages for the said non working days either under contract of employment or under some provision of law, otherwise he is not entitled to raise such a claim. But in Surender Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Cum Labour Court AIR 1981 SC 422 their Lordships of the Supreme court propounded that even if a workman has worked only for ten months but completed 240 days on work, he would be deemed to complete the requirement of working of 240 days in a calendar year. Sundays and paid holidays shall be taken into account. 5. The petitioner employer in his statement of claim did not plead that the workman had not worked on Sundays during the period he was employed. Calculation of working days by the petitioner employer excluding the Sundays has a taint of malice. Sundays and paid holidays shall be taken into account. 5. The petitioner employer in his statement of claim did not plead that the workman had not worked on Sundays during the period he was employed. Calculation of working days by the petitioner employer excluding the Sundays has a taint of malice. For the purpose of section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a workman can claim that he has actually worked in the eye of law, even though he may not have worked with hammer, sickle or pen, only he is paid or entitled to be paid wages. The respondent workman was also entitled to claim that he had actually worked in the eye of law for more than 240 days. The ratio of Bajrang Lal's case (supra) does not help the petitioner employer on the contrary it supports the respondent workman. 6. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed with costs. *******