BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE employer has come up with the instant writ application challenging an award dated september 19, 1995 passed by the Central government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta. ( 2 ) THE following disputes were referred to the Tribunal for adjudication:"whether the action of the Management of calcutta Telephones, Department of telecommunication, Taher Mansion, 8, bentinck Street, Calcutta-1 in terminating the services of Sri Rajat Chatterjee, casual workman with effect from January 1, 1989 is legal, proper and justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing before the tribunal, the workman alone led evidence but the employer did not come forward to controvert the evidence adduced on behalf of the employee. ( 4 ) ULTIMATELY, the learned Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record, arrived at a conclusion that for the entire year 1988, the employee had worked for 260 days and as such, was entitled to the benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and undisputedly the requirement of the said provisions not having been complied with, the termination was not justified. The Tribunal thus concluded in favour of the employee holding that he was entitled to reinstatement with effect from January 1, 1989 with full back wages. ( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied, the employer has come up with the instant writ application. ( 6 ) MR. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioner being a casual workman, was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act. Mr. Chatterjee drew attention of this Court to various portions of the award showing that the Tribunal misquoted the provisions contained in Section 2 (po) of the industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the Tribunal even held that the purpose of the employment of the employee had come to an end. ( 7 ) IN substance, Mr. Chatterjee contends that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the effect of amended provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act inasmuch as the provisions contained in Section 2 (oo) (bb) thereof, was not taken into consideration. ( 8 ) AS indicated above, the employer did not lead any evidence on its behalf. The findings of the Tribunal below is based on materials produced by the employee. ( 8 ) AS indicated above, the employer did not lead any evidence on its behalf. The findings of the Tribunal below is based on materials produced by the employee. The Tribunal has specifically come to the conclusion that the employee worked for 260 days during 1988 and such fact could not be controverted by producing any materials by the employer. It is now settled provisions of law that benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is also available to a casual worker who has worked for 260 days within a course of 12 months preceding the date of termination. That being the position, the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act is available to a casual worker. I am not at all convinced by the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee that the provisions contained in sub-section (bb) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act, is applicable to the instant case. No material has been placed before the Tribunal indicating that there was any stipulation in the agreement between the parties that the employment of the private respondent would come to an end with effect from January 1, 1989. Therefore, even if the petitioner is a casual worker, he is entitled to the benefit of section 25-F of the Act and is entitled to the benefit of reinstatement as such casual worker with full back wages as awarded by the Tribunal. ( 9 ) THUS, although I do not approve of all the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being correct and there being no infirmity in the ultimate conclusion, I do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. ( 10 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) AFTER this order was passed, Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners prayed for stay of operation of this order. In view of the fact that the termination was effected in the year 1989 and in view of what have been stated above, I do not find any reason to stay the operation of my order and as such the prayer for stay is thus rejected. ( 12 ) XEROX certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be delivered within a week from application.