JUDGMENT Hon'ble SHALLA, CJ.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.8.2001 whereby the writ petition of the appellant-Bank was dismissed while upholding the award passed by the Labour Court. 2. It is a case where a dispute was raised by the non-appellant-workman, regarding his termination/discontinuation from service w.e.f. 26.11.1993 and not to consider his case for regular appointment. It was stated that non. appellant-workman was initially engaged from 3.10.1989 till 12.10.1990 in Dabi branch of the Bank followed by engagement in Rampura branch for 55 days, 2 days in Gulabpura branch and thereafter in Jhalawar Road branch. The workman-employee was thereafter engaged from 8.12.1992 to 7.11.1993 in Dabi branch and thereafter from 8.11.1993 to 26.11.1993 in Jhalawar Road branch. The dispute was raised alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short' the Act') as well as violation of Rules 77 of the Rules. A claim for regular appointment was also made by the workman-employee non-appellant (for short the workman). A reply to the statement of claim was filed stating that the workman-employee was lastly engaged in Jhalawar branch where he had not worked for 240 days in a year, therefore, claim of the workman-employee was denied in all respects. The plea of the appellant was that the workman concerned was engaged for a particular period as daily rated employee, thus his services come to an end with the expiry of the period, hence, it does not fall within the definition of retrenchment' as provided under Section 2(oo) of the Act. 3. Learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that before termination of the services of the workman concerned, he had worked for 240 days in a year and as provisions of Section 25-F of the Act has not been complied with, termination/discontinuation of the workman-employee becomes illegal and accordingly order of reinstatement with back wages with other benefit was passed. 4. The writ petition was filed against the impugned award of the learned Labour Court stating that the total period of service in Jhalawar road branch was only of 14 days and learned Labour Court should not have counted workman's service in other branches. Hence, for drawing the conclusion regarding working for 240 days in a year, the working in other branches has wrongly been taken into consideration. Hence, for drawing the conclusion regarding working for 240 days in a year, the working in other branches has wrongly been taken into consideration. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspect and taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 2511/1991 dated 1.10.1991 came to the conclusion that if workman had worked in various sub divisions, the plea that the workman has not worked in a particular sub division for a period of more than 240 days, cannot be accepted. Similarly, a judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Central Industrial Tribunal was also referred. Learned Single Judge had not accepted the plea of non-clubbing of the working days in different branches/sub divisions. 5. Learned counsel for appellant-Bank submits that workman was engaged by the different branches independently from time to time and he being daily rates wages, his services should not be clubbed. Elaborating the facts, it is stated that even if the statement of the claim is looked into, the employee-workman had come with the case that he was engaged indifferent branches of the appellant-Bank from time to time. In view of the said statement of claim, the only fact remains for determination is as to whether working of the workman under different branches can be clubbed to reckon it to be continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act. It is stated that engagement of the workman on daily rate basis is by the branches concerned and in view of that, Branch Manager becomes the employer and thereby workman having worked in different branches, working in each branch has to be taken separately. Merely for the reason that the controlling authority i.e. Regional Manager is one and the same, cannot mean that the same, cannot mean that the workman's service under different branches can be taken together. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for appellant referred judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Sanjay reported in JT 2009(9) SC 475, Union of India & Ors. vs. Jummasha Diwan reported in 2006(8) SCC 544 , DGM Oil and Natural Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. llias Abdulrehman reported in 2005(2) SCC 183 , Kusheshwar Mandal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Jummasha Diwan reported in 2006(8) SCC 544 , DGM Oil and Natural Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. llias Abdulrehman reported in 2005(2) SCC 183 , Kusheshwar Mandal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2004(3) CDR 1810 (Raj.) and Sarvajanik Nirman Mazdoor Sangh Bhilwara & Ors. vs. Judge Labour Court, Udaipur & Ors. reported in RLW 2005 (2) Raj. 1070. 6. Learned counsel for non-appellant-workman-employee, on the other hand, supported award of the learned Labour Court as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is firstly urged that issue pertaining to clubbing of the working days under different branches was not raised by the appellant before the Labour Court, hence, they should not be permitted to raise the aforesaid issue here. It is further submitted that the workman's engagement was not at the instance of the branches, but was pursuant to the direction of the higher authorities, thus even if, the appellant is allowed to raise the sale argument regarding clubbing of the working days, then also it is not a case of clubbing the working days under different branches. Referring to the certain documents filed along with the additional affidavit in appeal, it has been demonstrated that as per the direction of the Regional Manager that the workman was engaged and that too, when a panel was issued by the Head Office of the Bank and the workman was engaged out of the said panel. The workman was given benefit of bonus by considering his entire working with the Bank, which includes working under different branches. In the light of the payment of bonus, it is not open for the appellant to state that for the purposes of reckoning continuous service under the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act, they can take a different plea. In view of the above submissions, prayer of the non-appellant is to dismissed the appeal. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 8. Before averting to the legal issue raise by the appellant as to whether working days under different branches can be considered for determining continuous service of non-appellant-workman, it is necessary to deal with the objection raised by the non-appellant. 7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 8. Before averting to the legal issue raise by the appellant as to whether working days under different branches can be considered for determining continuous service of non-appellant-workman, it is necessary to deal with the objection raised by the non-appellant. According to the non-appellant, the issue regarding working days under different branches for determining continuous service was not an issue taken before the learned Labour Court, thus the appellant should not be allowed to raise the aforesaid issue here. A reference of the judgment in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Arvind Chaubey & Am. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 549 has been given. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that main issue raised in the writ petition was, in fact, determination of the working days under different branches. It shows that the aforesaid issue was decided in the light of two judgments referred therein, thus if judgment impugned herein is looked into, it is based on the issue pertaining to determination of working days under different branches. Learned counsel for non-appellant could not clarify as to why the objection as has been raised herein was not raised before the learned Single Judge and once he has failed to raise such an objection whether aforesaid issue can be raised now, more so when no review petition has been filed by the non-appellant. Even if, we look into the facts of the case, it comes out from the statement of the claim filed by the non-appellant that he had worked under different branches. Once the statement of facts has been narrated by the employee-workman himself, if not denied, it is to be taken as correct under the normal circumstances, more so if the same is proved by the evidence. The issue then remains as to whether working under different branches can be clubbed for determining continuous service. It remains a pure legal issue in those circumstances. in fact, the learned Labour Court ought to have looked into the aforesaid. aspect while determining the issue pertaining to continuous service of the workman. The issue then remains as to whether working under different branches can be clubbed for determining continuous service. It remains a pure legal issue in those circumstances. in fact, the learned Labour Court ought to have looked into the aforesaid. aspect while determining the issue pertaining to continuous service of the workman. Once, a factual aspect comes before the Tribunal, it is under obligation to determine the issue in the light of the settled legal position, ignorance of legal position in determining such an issue cannot be put to the advantage to any party, which would otherwise result in nothing, but perpetuation of the illegality by the superior Court. In the aforesaid background of the case, we are unable to accept the objection raised by the non-appellant. This is moreso when the objection regarding determination of issue of continuous service was not raised before the learned Single Judge. In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), the issue as to whether Maridi Samiti falls within the definition of 'industry' or not, was an issue raised for the first time before the High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court have taken note of the fact that even the High Court had not allowed to take aforesaid issue for the first time before them and was held that the High Court has rightly denied to enter in that controversy as that was not the issue raised before the Tribunal. The High Court otherwise in other judgment held Mandi Samiti to be an industry, thus in those circumstances the judgment was rendered. In the present matter, the factual position is otherwise. It is a case where even workman came with the case that he was engaged under different branches for different periods, thus in view of the facts, it remains only a legal issue as to whether working under different branches can be taken as continuous service or not. It is a settled position of law that a legal issue can be raised at any stage. 9. In view of the above, we cannot accept the objection raised by the non-appellant regarding argument raised by the appellant for determination of issue of continuous service, moreso when non-appellant failed to raise objection before the learned Single Bench. 10. It is a settled position of law that a legal issue can be raised at any stage. 9. In view of the above, we cannot accept the objection raised by the non-appellant regarding argument raised by the appellant for determination of issue of continuous service, moreso when non-appellant failed to raise objection before the learned Single Bench. 10. Coming to the main issue raised by the appellant, this Court is to determine as to whether working under different branches can be taken as continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act. The non-appellant has made reference of certain documents filed along with the additional affidavit in the appeal. Perusal of the orders issued by the Regional Manager as well as Head Office shows that it only an instruction as to in what manner daily rated or casual employee has to be engaged. In none of the orders passed therein shows that the non-appellant was engaged by the Regional Manager or the Head Office. The circulars or instructions providing guidelines for engagement of the daily rated or casual employee cannot be taken as an order of engagement. Even if, we consider the order dated 31.7.1992 on which much reliance has been placed, firstly it does Rot show to be an appointment order. Further it was issued for Dabi branch whereas non- appellants lastly engagement in Jhalawar road branch. If the letter dated 31 .7.1992 is further looked into, then it demolishes the contentions of the non-appellant because in so many words, it has been stated that in what manner a person can be engaged by the Branch Manager. In such given circumstances, it becomes clear that the engagement of the person is by the Branch Manager only. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be held that even in the light of the documents filed for the first time by the non-appellant, it cannot be said that the workman was engaged by any other authority than the Branch Manager. 11. We have considered the documents filed by the non-appellant-workman despite the objections raised by the Bank. This is only to avoid hyper-technical approach. Now comes the facts regarding the payment of bonus after taking entire working days of the workman. 11. We have considered the documents filed by the non-appellant-workman despite the objections raised by the Bank. This is only to avoid hyper-technical approach. Now comes the facts regarding the payment of bonus after taking entire working days of the workman. If we look into the definition clause provided under the Payment of Bonus Act, it becomes clear that working under the different branches, units and establishments is to be taken as one whereas such definition does not exist under the provisions of the Act of 1947. In view of the aforesaid, any action taken under provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, the non-appellant cannot take benefit for drawing any conclusion under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes when substantially the provisions of the law under two Acts are different. Under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, an employer remains one even if workman has worked under the different branches, units and establishments, then obvious consequence is to count all the workings as per the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act. 12. Now, considering to the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act, if the issue is looked into, it becomes clear that the workman having worked under different branches, his total working cannot be taken into consideration for determining continuous service. The aforesaid aspect has already been dealt with by the Hon'hle Apex Court in the judgments cited before us. In the case of Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra), the issue was substantially same as existed in the present matter. Therein also the workman had worked under different District Managers controlled by the Managing Director of HAFED, but then it was held that the industrial establishment of the workman being different, working days cannot be clubbed together. Same view has been taken in the case of Haryana Development Authority (supra) so as in the case of Jummasha Diwan (supra). In the case of DGC Oil and Natural Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), the workman had worked under different departments, his working days were not clubbed. The aforesaid aspect has been discussed elaborately and therein it was held that working under different department and at a different places cannot be meant that those working days can be clubbed to take it to be continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-8 of the Act. The aforesaid aspect has been discussed elaborately and therein it was held that working under different department and at a different places cannot be meant that those working days can be clubbed to take it to be continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-8 of the Act. In the light of the judgments referred to above, we hold that working of a workman under different units, branches, departments or establishments cannot be clubbed to reckon his continuous service unless his appointment order issued by one and the same authority. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, we cannot accept the finding of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance of a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, however, now in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we cannot pursue ourselves to follow the Division Bench judgment. 14. The outcome of the discussion is that on taking working of the workman in different branches separately, he has not worked for 240 days in 5 the last employment, thus violation of Section 25-F of the Act does not exist. 15. In the light of the discussions made above, we allow the appeal and accordingly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge so as the award of the learned Labour Court. The cost of the appeal is made easy.