JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Anil Bhandari for the petitioners and Mr. Sachin Acharya for the Respondents. 2. This petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court. The petitioners did not appear before the Labour Court, after once entering appearance, and as a result the proceedings were taken ex parte against the petitioners and the award was also passed ex parte. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on his own saying the respondent employee had not completed 240 days of working in an year and, therefore, benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not have been given to him. The learned counsel submitted that in paragraph 10 of the award the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has found that the respondent employee was paid for 26 days each in the months of May 1992, June 1992, July 1992, August 1992 and Sept. 1992. According to the learned counsel, on calculation of the actual working days put in by the respondent employee, he has not completed 240 days of actual working. The learned counsel submitted that for the purposes of sub-section (2) of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, actual working days should mean the days on which the workman physically attended and worked. 4. The proposition cannot be accepted in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 458 : 1986 Lab IC 98. In paragraph 5 of their judgment their Lordships have clearly observed that the expression "actually worked under the employer" cannot mean those days only when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing orders. etc. 5. Thus, taking the Sundays and statutory days into account the calculation made by the Labour Court is correct. Moreover, the petitioner has not taken this point in the petition itself and has not contested that the respondent has completed 240 days of working. No other point was raised before me. 6. The petition has no force, it is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******