Honble SINGH, J.–This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28 Nov. 1994 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 392/85 filed by the petitioner- appellants whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the award passed by the learned labour court, Udaipur (Annexure-1) dated 16.4.84 by which the reference was answered against the petitioner and the workmen. (2). Both the learned counsel court as well as learned Single Judge have held that the workmen-appellants No. 2 and 3 worked in different units, and therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in their case. The counsel for the petitioner appellants has submitted that irrespective of different Units the employer in the case of workmen is the same. (3). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the workmen were employed in the workshop of the Electricity Sub- Division, Bhilwara in November 1977 till July 1978. Thereafter, in August 1978 they were on the muster role of the East City, Sub-division Bhilwara. In February 1979 they were reappointed in the East City Division, Bhilwara on Muster Roll where they continued to work up to August 1979 and their services were terminated on account of stoppage of work, and therefore, after the termination of their services at the City East Sub-Division, Bhilwara of the Electricity Department the petitioner-appellants were appointed on muster roll in the Electricity Sub-Division West of Bhilwara. After the termination of their services from Sub-division West they were given fresh appointment in the City Sub-Division, Bhilwara from February 1980 to May 1980 when their services were finally terminated. The learned labour court in its award held that the appointment of the petitioner-workmen was in different Units and the appointing authorities of the said Units were different persons. It was, therefore, held that the workmen did not complete 240 days in the same establishment and therefore, their case was not covered by the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. (4). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon an unreported judgment in Shiv Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1), decided on 1.10.91 wherein it has been held that, ``merely because the petitioner worked in different Sub-divisions of the same department will not make any difference. (5). (4). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon an unreported judgment in Shiv Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1), decided on 1.10.91 wherein it has been held that, ``merely because the petitioner worked in different Sub-divisions of the same department will not make any difference. (5). Based upon the aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench it is contended by the appellant that the case of the present appellant is covered by the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon another decision of the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan vs. Ram Narayan Meena (2), dated 28.2.92 wherein the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has observed that, ``Even though the units are different, the department is same by which whatever work was assigned to the respondent was done. (6). A perusal of the aforesaid two judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant goes to show that the earlier view taken by this Court in 1987 (1) RLR page 71 (3), was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. On the contrary the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State has brought to our notice a recent Division Benchs judgment in 2004 Vol. III CDR 1810 (4), and AIR 1997 SC 693 (5). (7). The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has agreed with the findings and the reasonings given by the learned labour court nd dismissed the writ petition holding that none of the workmen completed continuous 240 days in one Unit and as such they are not entitled for reinstatement. The learned Single Judge relied upon the decision 1987(1) RLR page 71 (supra). (8). A Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision Kusheshwar Mandal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), has taken the view that for the application of the provisions contained in Section 25-F it is incumbent that the establishment must be under the same employer where the workman has completed the requisite period of continued service. (8). A Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision Kusheshwar Mandal vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), has taken the view that for the application of the provisions contained in Section 25-F it is incumbent that the establishment must be under the same employer where the workman has completed the requisite period of continued service. Where the employment is at two different places (Sub-division as in this case) of the employer on availability of work, it cannot be treated as part of the same establishment and the appellant would not be entitled to any relief. (9). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kunji Raman (6), in para 7 has laid down as under:- ``.......A sub-division is regarded as a unit for the purpose of establishment of the work-charged employees. A separate seniority list of each category is maintained in each unit for the purpose of promotion as well as retrenchment. The service of a work-charged employee is ordinarily not transferable from one work-charged establishment to another work-charged establishment. (10). The learned labour court in its award has noticed the following provisions of the Work charged Establishment Rules and the standing orders passed thereunder. In para 2(i)(h) the definition of appointing authority is as under: ``2(i)(h)-Appointing Authority means an authority competent to make appointment to the service on work charged Establishment under the Schedule of powers issued by the Government from time to time. (11). Similarly the definition of Unit has also been given. The term Unit has been defined thus: ``Unit means Territorial jurisdiction of authority competent to make appointments on work charged Establishment. (12). Under the same provisions in para 41 as regards transfer from one unit to another it has been provided that, ``Normally no workman shall be transferred from one unit to another except in special case as a consequence of transfer of work/works or machinery from one unit to another. (13). In the present case both the workmen appellants No. 2 and 3 have worked in different units and sub-divisions for different periods at different times as per the job requirement. In the first instance the workmen were engaged by the appointing authority of each Sub-division, who is the Assistant Engineer concerned in the Electrical Sub-division, Bhilwara. (13). In the present case both the workmen appellants No. 2 and 3 have worked in different units and sub-divisions for different periods at different times as per the job requirement. In the first instance the workmen were engaged by the appointing authority of each Sub-division, who is the Assistant Engineer concerned in the Electrical Sub-division, Bhilwara. Thereafter, upon cessation of the work they were employed in the Electrical Sub-division East, subsequently in the City West Sub-division and lastly in the Electrical Sub-division. As per the finding of the learned labour court every appointment in the respective Sub- divisions was given by different Assistant Engineers of the Sub- division concerned who was the appointing authority of the respective Sub-division in respect of the workmen. The workmen were engaged during the subsistence of the work and their services were terminated on the completion of the work in the respective Sub-divisions. In the light of these findings which have not been challenged by the petitioners-appellants and the provisions of Work-charged Employees Rules herein above referred to and applying the test laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Kunji Raman each Sub-division being a separate unit in the case of work-charged employees their appointing authority being the respective Assistant Engineer of the Sub- division concerned their seniority list in each category and Sub- division being separate and their service being non-transferable from one Unit/Sub-division to another we find that the appellants No. 2 and 3 did not work continuously in the same unit and the respective Sub-divisions were their employer for the period during which they were employed in the said Sub-divisions. Thus, their period of service in each unit can cannot be clubbed. Consequently, in the light of the judgment of their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Kunji Ramans case and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kusheshwar Mandals case this appeal is liable to be dismissed. (14). In view of the aforesaid, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge upholding the award passed by the learned labour court, Udaipur. (15). Consequently, this special appeal has no force and the same is dismissed. The award passed by the learned labour court is upheld.