Honble SHARMA, J.–The appellant was appointed on muster roll by the respondent on July 16, 1986 on the post of cattle guard in Forest department. He was removed from service without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `ID Act). He raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court Kota. The respondents did not produce any evidence or any affidavit controverting the facts submitted by the appellant. Learned Labour Court vide Award dated May 23, 1996 while adding 44 days of weekly and other holidays into the actual 201 working days held that since the compliance of section 25F of ID Act was necessary, the order of removal of appellant with full back wages with continuity of service was also issued. The Award dated May 23, 1996 was challenged by the respondents by filing the writ petition, which came to be allowed vide order dated October 11, 2001 on the ground that since the workman had not worked on those holidays the same could not be counted in the actual working days. This order of learned Single Judge has been impugned by the appellant in the instant special appeal. (2). Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the workman can claim that he has worked on Sundays in the eyes of law, even though he may not have actually worked. Sundays (Holidays) should be counted as actual working days for the purpose of calculating 240 days. Reliance is placed on Dy. Chief Life Warden Bharatpur vs. Judge Labour Court Bharatpur (1999 (1) RLR 250), Dhyan Singh vs. University of Raj., (1991 (1) RLR 793), Babu Lal Sharma vs. University of Ajmer (1989 (1) RLR 624). He has also contended that the Forest Department is an Industry as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Chief Conservator Forests vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare (ILLJ 1996 SC 1223). (3). Having heard the rival submissions, we find that in view of the settled proposition of law the calculation of working days by employer, excluding Sundays, is taint of malice and Sundays should be counted as actual working days for the purpose of calculating 240 days. The Labour Court has not committed any illegality in passing the award particularly when the respondents did not care to file any reply to the statement of claim nor any evidence was produced by them before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has not committed any illegality in passing the award particularly when the respondents did not care to file any reply to the statement of claim nor any evidence was produced by them before the Labour Court. Therefore, the impugned order of learned Single Judge is not sustainable in view of the settled proposition of law. (4). Consequently the special appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated October 11, 2001 is set aside. The Award dated May 23, 1996 is confirmed and the respondents are directed to comply with the award immediately. There shall be no order as to costs.