JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, Municipal Council, Jaipur has challenged Award dated 24.12.91 (Ex.39) passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in IT. 331/82, directing that from the date of their completion of 240 days of service, the employees of respondent Union became entitled for all benefits as per their demands raised before the Tribunal. 2. The respondent employees' Union raised a dispute by way of reference made by appropriate Government u/s. 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act') vide notification dated 30.10.82 for adjudication with regard to claim of (1) medical reimbursement; (2) cycle allowance; (3) soap & meter duster per month; (4) confirmation; (5) 15 days leave on full pay & allowances in a year; (6) Weekly rest with pay; & (7) Uniform in summer & winter seasons, from the date on which they have completed 240 days of their service. 3. During adjudication of the dispute under reference, it was admitted between the parties that all the seven claims (supra) of the respondent Union have been accepted by the petitioner Municipality; but their grievance was that their claims should be acceded to them from the date they completed 240 days of service; as such, question for consideration before the Tribunal, which remained for adjudication was as to from what date, the workmen became entitled to claim such benefits in dispute under Reference, either immediately on completion of 240 days of service of the workmen or otherwise? 4. However, after considering circulars dated 2.5.1986 & 18.1.89 issued by Director, Local Bodies Government of Rajasthan Jaipur, the Tribunal passed the Award dated 24.12.91 (Ex.39) holding that all the workmen of the Union are entitled to get such benefits as claimed under reference, from the date of their completion of 240 days in service, and validity whereof has been assailed by the Municipality by way of present writ petition. 5. Shri Manoj Pareek, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that completion of 240 days service as stipulated in SI 25-B of the Act makes an employer to be under an obligation while considering factum of termination of a workman, for complying with mandate U/s. 25-F of the Act, and no such right of any other nature is to be conferred upon employee/workman merely on his completion of 240 days service. In support of his contention, Shri Pareek relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, UP v. Anil Kumar Mishra ( AIR 1994 SC 1638 ) . 6. Shri Pareek further submitted that circulars, on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal, merely makes an observation that those, who have completed 240 days, are to be considered for grant of certain benefits including regularisation of their services, but it does not stipulate to make workman entitled to claim benefits from the date on which he completed 240 days' service, Shri Pareek urged that the Tribunal has in fact misread and misinterpreted circulars, for accepting the claim of respondent Union vide Award dated 24.12.91 (Ex.39). 7. Per contra, Shri M.F. Baig, counsel for respondent Union submits that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in extending benefits as claimed in reference made by appropriate Government in favour of the workmen/employees, and they are rightly held to be entitled to all such benefits as referred to in the reference from the date of completion of their 240 days" service, and therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error of law in taking note of the circulars referred to in the Award. Shri Baig relied upon the decision of Apex Court in D. Chamoli v. . State of UP (1986(1) LLN 293) and Surinder Singh v. . E.I.C. CPWD (1986(1) LLN 552) . 8. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Under the scheme of the Act, certain pre-conditions are stipulated while taking decision for retrenchment of workman, who remained in continuous service for not less than one year in the organisation of the employer. "Continuous service" has been defined in S.25-8 and its sub-clause (2) provides that where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case. Thus, those, who have completed 240 days of continuous service in preceding 12 calendar months of their termination or retrenchment, employer is under obligation to comply with pre-condition while taking decision as provided in S.25-F of the Act, failing which, action of the employer taking decision with regard to retrenchment or termination, stands vitiated. As such, legal consequences, which flow from work for that duration under the Act are entirely different and in my opinion, analogy which has been adopted by the Tribunal in extending benefit as claimed under reference by respondent Union from the date on completion of 240 days' service, is in no manner legally sustainable. Completion of 240 days' service does not under law import any right to seek benefits as claimed including right to regularisation and that merely imposes certain obligations upon the employer to comply with condition precedent as provided in section 25-F of the Act while taking decision with regard to termination or retrenchment of workman.So far as submission made with regard to invocation of circulars dated 2.5 86 & 18.1.89 issued by the Director Local Bodies, are concerned, from a bare reading of circulars (supra), it makes the incumbent eligible for grant of benefits including regularisation, who have completed 240 days' service, but it nowhere transpires that the incumbent workman became entitled to get benefits including regularisation of service from the date he completed 240 day 3' service. In my opinion, the Tribunal has misinterpreted and misread the so elm liars, which have been made basis for grant of benefits in question to the won(man under reference while passing the impugned Award (Ex.39). 10. The decisions in D. Chamoli & Surinder Singh's cases (supra) cited by counsel for the respondent Union are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. 10. The decisions in D. Chamoli & Surinder Singh's cases (supra) cited by counsel for the respondent Union are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. In these cited decisions (supra), the Apex Court was examining the dispute with regard to benefits extended to such daily wages casual workers who were discharging duties of Class IV employees, and wherein casual workers engaged on daily wages basis, had claimed benefit on the principle of equal pay for equal work and for grant of regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees, whereas in present case, the dispute raised by respondent Union is not based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, but it has made co-terminus with completion of 240 days' service to the benefits claimed by respondent Union, which has been accepted by the Tribunal by taking note of Government circulars (supra), which is not legally sustainable.For aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The Award dated 15 24.12.91 (Ex.39) passed by Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. *******