Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court No. 2 Jaipur dated 12.1.2001 whereby the Labour Court has answered the reference on the question of the validity of the removal of the petitioner by the respondents from their services and has held that his removal was valid and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. 3. Shri D.C. Tiwari- Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the Labour Court has erroneously held the petitioner for availing the weekly holidays was required to prove his working for continuous 240 days. Petitioner has proved before the Labour Court that he worked in the calender year preceding the date of retrenchment on 17.4.1999 for 218 days but the Labour Court recorded an erroneous finding that the period of weekly holidays would not be admissible to the petitioner because he has not continuously worked for such period and that his work in the months of April 1989, July 1989, August 1989, September 1989 October 1989 and November 1989 has not been for the duration of full month. His Services cannot be treated as continuous and he would not be entitled to any relief. Learned counsel has submitted that Labour Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was argued that there was violation of not only Section 25F of the Act but also of Section 25G and 25H and that persons junior to the petitioner were not retrenched and are still in service. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain - learned Addl. Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was merely engaged on daily wages basis and that he voluntarily left service to work elsewhere. He denied the suggestions that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 17.4.1990. It was denied that there was violation of the 25F of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that in order to avail of the benefit of weekly holidays, the petitioner was required to prove that he continuously worked for 240 days in the calender year preceding the date of his retrenchment. 5. It was denied that there was violation of the 25F of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that in order to avail of the benefit of weekly holidays, the petitioner was required to prove that he continuously worked for 240 days in the calender year preceding the date of his retrenchment. 5. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court, I find that Labour Court has indeed refused to extend the benefit of 31 admissible weekly Sundays and 7 gazetted holidays to the petitioner during the aforesaid period because it is held that the petitioner has failed to prove his working for full duration of above referred to four months. Otherwise, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner had worked for 218 days with the respondents for the period from April 1989 to 31 March 1990, in the calender year preceding the date his retrenchment. View taken by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law because if tit is insisted that workmen will have to prove his work for full duration of every month, then their would be no need to assume his working for one year even if he has worked only for 240 days in that year. This would negate the intention of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act which provides that if workman is not in continues for one year or 6 months, he shall be deemed to have worked for a period of one year during period of 12 calender months preceding the date with reference to which the calculation is made if he has actually worked for 190 days in underground mine and 240 days, in any other case. He is thus by this deeming clause deemed to be in continuous service even if he would have actually worked for only 240 days although the normal requirement (working of one years is thereby relexed). View taken by the Labour Court, therefore, cannot be sustained. The petitioner is held entitled to the weekly holidays proportionate to the period of his actually working of days 218 days which comes to 29 days and additionally if gazetted holding are added thereto, he has worked for more than 240 days during calender year preceding to the date of his retrenchment. 6. The petitioner is held entitled to the weekly holidays proportionate to the period of his actually working of days 218 days which comes to 29 days and additionally if gazetted holding are added thereto, he has worked for more than 240 days during calender year preceding to the date of his retrenchment. 6. Coming now to the question as to what relief may be granted to the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner worked with the respondents lastly up to 17 April to 1990. As per his own assertion, thus, it is clear that for last 19 years, he has not been in their service. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis only for the period of 21.11.1988 to 16.4.1990. His appointment was not made by way of any acceptable mode of recruitment. Requiring the respondent to reinstate the petitioner at this distance of time would not be just and proper especially keeping in view the recent approach of law. While, therefore, upholding the award to the extent it decleared removal of the petitioner violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the direction for his retrenchment same is set aside. The respondents are instead required to pay to him lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 lac in lieu thereof. 7. Compliance of the Judgment be made within three months from the date of its copy is produced before the respondents.