Judgment :- The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichirapalli, the first respondent herein, in I. D. No. 110 of 1997 dated 3.2.2004. 2. The petitioner's claim for reinstatement in the second respondent, a state owned Transport Corporation, was rejected by the Labour Court. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a temporary conductor from the year 1984, with the second respondent/Corporation and he is working continuously without break of service and attending the duty regularly. It is specifically stated that the wages are calculated on daily rate but paid on monthly basis, as is being paid to all the temporary workers. The temporary workers are also performing the same work like permanent workers and are entitled for all statutory benefits. 4. It is stated that, though he is working for more than 10 years and working more than 240 days in every calendar year, the second respondent has not made him permanent. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 26.4.1995, his service was terminated orally by the second respondent without assigning any reason and without prior notice. Hence, the termination is illegal and is without following the mandatory conditions under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). 6. Therefore, he raised a dispute in the Labour Court, and the same was rejected. Hence, he is before this Court. 7. The second respondent has filed his detailed counter. Accordingly, the service of the petitioner was utilized on a Casual basis, as and when his service was required and, the employment subsisted on day-to-day basis and not on monthly basis and permanency, and as and when the petitioner attended the duty, he was being paid wages for that day and for other days when his service was not required, he has not been paid any wages. 8. Thus, the case of the second respondent is that no employer - workman relationship existed between the respondent and the petitioner. 9. It is stated that the petitioner was never employed in any substantial post. It is also stated that the casual employees are engaged by the Branch Manager, depending, upon the requirements. Hence, those casual employees including the petitioner, cannot claim any lien or right for, any employment in the Corporation. 9. It is stated that the petitioner was never employed in any substantial post. It is also stated that the casual employees are engaged by the Branch Manager, depending, upon the requirements. Hence, those casual employees including the petitioner, cannot claim any lien or right for, any employment in the Corporation. It is stated that the name of the petitioner was sponsored for substantial post, but he was not selected and this fact was admitted by the petitioner also. Hence, he continues to be a casual employee. It is stated that there are number of such persons, attached with the respondent. It is also stated that the respondent never terminated the service of the petitioner as there is no question of any employment as the petitioner is not their employee. 10. The stand taken by the second respondent is that they utilized the service of the petitioner as and when they required. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a retrenchment. 11. It is also stated that the petitioner never worked continuously beyond 240 days in twelve calendar months and even according to his own evidence, he worked only for 135 days in a year and that too not continuously. It is stated that the service of petitioner is taken from 1994 on daily wages basis. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief and he fails to satisfy, the requirements of the provisions of the Act. The first respondent thus pronounced an award, rejecting his claim. 12. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the second respondent, and learned I Additional Government Pleader appearing or the first respondent. 13. Perused the award of the, first respondent. 14. The point for determination is whether the petitioner is being terminated from service, and if so, is he entitled, for any relief? Point: The petitioner did not produce any document to show that he was appointed by the second respondent in any substantial post and he is a permanent employee. 15. Section 2(oo) of the Act deals with 'retrenchment' and it means that the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. 16. Section 2(s) deals with the definition of workman. 17. 15. Section 2(oo) of the Act deals with 'retrenchment' and it means that the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. 16. Section 2(s) deals with the definition of workman. 17. The first respondent discussed this aspect at paragraph 11 of his award and observed, that the petitioner has been provided work on daily wages basis by the concerned Branch Manager. It is also observed in paragraph 12 that the petitioner was not able to establish that he worked for more than 240 days, in a calendar year. It is also observed that as per Exhibit W1, he has not established that he has worked for more than 240 days a year. Therefore, the first respondent has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he has been appointed on a regular basis, with, the concerned authorities in order-to claim that he is an employee of the, second respondent and so also, he has failed to produce any document to show that he worked for more than 240 days a year and in order, to claim any relief, under Section 25 (F) of the Act. The first respondent has relied on the judgment of this Court and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently Contended that the provisions of Sections 25(B) (F) and (H) ought to be considered. 19. However, it is conceded that there is no document to prove that, the petitioner was appointed by the second respondent and it is also stated that there is no document to prove state that there is no document to prove that the Petitioner has worked continuously for more than 240 days in any calendar year. 20. The Section 25 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with 'definition of continuous service'. It is as follows: "25-B. Definition of continuous service for the purpose of this chapter, ....................... (2). 20. The Section 25 (B) of the Industrial Disputes Act deals with 'definition of continuous service'. It is as follows: "25-B. Definition of continuous service for the purpose of this chapter, ....................... (2). 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;” 21. The Supreme Court of India in more than 100 case has clearly held that b fore a workman can be considered to have com­pleted one year of continuous service man industry, it must be shown that he was employed for period not less than twelve calen­dar months, and the most important fact is that during those twelve calendar months, he should have worked for not less than 240 days. 22. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to prove that he was employed with the second respondent for a period not less than twelve calendar months and so also, he failed to prove that he has worked for not, less than 240 days in any calendar month. 23. In Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others etc. AIR 1994 SC 1638 : 1994-II-LLJ-977 (SC) the Supreme, Court of India has categorically held that if a person working in the post which has not been sanctioned and he has not been appointed in any substantial post and when his services are utilized only on ad hoc basis, such a person has neither any right to claim regularization nor any status to claim as a workman under the Act, to claim any relief in spite of the fact that such a workman working in ad hoc basis who has completed the service of 240 days. 24. The question of termination or retrenchment is with regard to the regular employee. 24. The question of termination or retrenchment is with regard to the regular employee. When it is not a case of retrenchment of regular employee the petitioner is not entitled for any relief under Section 25(H) as he is not a regular employee or has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in twelve calendar months. There are no merits in this writ petition. 25. In Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh, 2005 (8) SCC 750 , the Supreme Court of India has held that the facts must be proved by the workman to claim the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act. To claim the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Act, it should be proved by the workman that there exists a relationship of employer - employee, and that, he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and he has worked for not less than one year service continuously as provided under Section 25(B) of the Act. If any one the of this is missing, then the workman is not entitled for the relief under Section 25(F). Thus the Supreme, Court of India has categorically to prove all the above facts. 26. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Others v. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1997 SC 3657 : 1997 (4) SCC 391 : 1998-II-LLJ-15, the Supreme Court of India has held that the disengagement from service of appellants, who were temporary employees working on daily wages, did not amount to “retrenchment” and the termination of their service was not in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act. Since they were only daily wage employees, they had no right to their posts and their disengagement was not arbitrary. 27. The counsel for the, petitioner contended that the second respondent may consider for re-employment of the petitioner. 28. The second respondent can consider the same. The corporation is at liberty to do and this Court cannot give any direction in, this regard. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.