JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The petitioner, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Board for short), feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 18.10.2006, passed by learned Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamsala, Distt. Kangra, H.P., in reference No. 113/2003 (Annexure P-3), has preferred the present writ petition for quashing and setting the same. The legality and validity of the impugned award has been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate the pleadings as well as the evidence produced by the parties and has based its findings on surmises and conjectures. The findings, that the Board has violated Clause 14(2) of the Certified Standing Orders, are stated to be wrong and contrary to the record. No relief could have been granted by the Tribunal below, for the reason that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wage basis on a particular work and on the completion thereof, his services were rightly dispensed with. The engagement of the petitioner on daily wage basis was subject to the availability of work. Since no work is stated to be available with the Board, therefore, the finding qua reinstatement of the respondent-workman has been sought to be set aside and quashed. 2. Pursuant to the process issued, respondent-workman has put in appearance and he is represented by S/Shri Shashi Bhushan and Vikas Rathore, Advocates. 3. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the record, the only question which needs determination in this writ petition, is as to whether the direction issued by Learned Tribunal below qua reinstatement of the respondent-workman with seniority, suffers from any illegality, being not supported by the evidence? 4. The answer to the above poser, in all fairness as well as in the interest of justice, would be in negative, for the reason that as per the admitted case of the parties, the respondent-workman was engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the year 1996. He continued as such till the year 2000. His services were dispensed with orally, without issuing a legal and valid notice as required under the law. 5. He continued as such till the year 2000. His services were dispensed with orally, without issuing a legal and valid notice as required under the law. 5. True it is that he had not completed 240 days in a calendar year, as is evident from the perusal of Man days Chart, enclosed to Annexure P-2 but admittedly he continued as Beldar on daily wage basis right from the year 1996 till 2000. Therefore, his services could not have been dispensed with, without issuing at least 10 days notice to him, as provided under Clause 14(2) of the Certified Standing Orders, framed by the Board itself. Otherwise also, in order to attract the provisions contained u/s 25G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is not necessary for a workman to complete 240 days in a calendar year. It has been held so by our own High Court, in its judgment dated 18.6.2010 in CWP 308 of 2009, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and Others versus Ghanshyam and Others. In the judgment (supra) the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Vs. S. Satyam and others, , Samishta Dube Vs. City Board, Etawah and Another, and Regional Manager, S.B.I. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, has also been relied upon. 6. The Tribunal below has, thus, not committed any illegality and irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that the Board could not have dispensed with the services of the respondent-workman without issuance of notice and arriving at a conclusion that the oral retrenchment of the petitioner from service was illegal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal below, thus, need no interference by this Court. In view of the position explained hereinabove, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending CMPs, if any.