Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the State has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, in Reference No. 165/2006, dated 04.12.2010, vide which learned Reference Court while allowing the reference petition, granted the following relief in favour of the workman therein i.e. the present respondent. “For the foregoing reasons discussed the reference is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularize the period of absence of the petitioner on account of sickness in the year 1997. As a sequel thereto the seniority of the petitioner shall be reckoned w.e.f. 1994 for the purposes of his regularization. The reference is answered in the following terms. Copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication in the official gazette and the file after completion be consigned to the record room.” 2. Primarily the said award stands assailed on the ground that learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that as the workman had neither intimated the factum of his illness to his superior authority, nor he had applied for or obtained any medical leave in this regard, the period of alleged sickness could not have been included for determining “continuous service” as was rendered by the workman in the year 1997, as is contemplated in Section 25-B of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No other point was urged. 3. The factual matrix involved in this case is in a narrow compass. The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as workman) was denied the benefit of regularization as per the regularization policy of the State on the ground that he had not completed more than 240 days’ continuous service in the year 1997. Feeling aggrieved, the workman had taken the recourse to the remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act, which resulted in following reference being sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. “Whether the action of the Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. not to consider the medical leave period on production of medical certificate by Shri Sobha Ram S/o Shri Mahi workman for counting the same towards regularization of his service is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, regularization and amount of compensation Shri Sobha Ram is entitled to.” 4. If not, what relief of service benefits, regularization and amount of compensation Shri Sobha Ram is entitled to.” 4. It is not in dispute that in the year 1997, workman had put in 212 days’ service. As per the workman, on account of his sickness, he was unable to perform his work and to demonstrate that his absence from duty was not willful but was on account of sickness, he submitted before the authorities Ext. PA to Ext. PC which are medical certificates issued in his favour by the Medical Officers of Government Hospital, Rati, District Mandi, which demonstrate that during the period mentioned therein, the workman was ill. Medical Certificates so submitted by the workman were not taken into consideration for computing continuous service by the department inter alia on the ground, as is stated in the reply so filed to the claim petition, that (a) medical leave was not got sanctioned by the workman from his immediate superior at the relevant time; (b) no medical leave was sanctioned in favour of the workman for his illness; (c) workman had not submitted any proof for his illness as indoor patient, nor he had applied or was granted any medical leave; (d) the workman had not submitted any fitness certificate subsequently in proof of his having remained as indoor patient. 5. Learned Labour Court while dispelling the stands so taken by the State answered the reference petition in favour of the workman by holding that as per provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a workman is said to be in continuous service by including the period of service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave etc. Learned Labour Court held that sickness per se in itself was a ground for interruption, which could be reckoned for counting continuous service. It further held that respondent-State while issuing instructions on absence on medical grounds had tried to curtail the statutory right of the workman by framing the instructions which were in derogation to the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Labour Court held that notification issued by the Government could not supersede the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as was purported to be so done vide notification Ext. Learned Labour Court held that notification issued by the Government could not supersede the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as was purported to be so done vide notification Ext. RW1/D. On these bases, it was held by learned Labour Court that there was no merit in the stand of the State and the period of sickness of the workman in the year 1997 had to be counted while calculating continuous service. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case as well as the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 7. It is not in dispute that save and except for the year 1997, the workman had rendered more than 240 days continuous service in each calendar year. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1997, the workman had served for 212 days. It was not the case of the respondent-State before the learned Labour Court that after serving for 212 days in the year 1997, the workman had voluntarily abandoned the job. The factum of the workman being sick stands proved on record from the medical certificates Ext. PA to Ext. PC which were issued in his favour by the concerned Medical Officer of Government Hospital Rati, District Mandi, which demonstrates that the workman was in fact sick for about 50 days in the year 1997 and on account of said sickness of his, he could not perform his duties. Therefore, it is not a case where the workman has relied upon medical certificates so issued either by some private hospital or by some private medical practitioner to demonstrate that he was sick. The reasons, in my considered view, which stand assigned in the reply so filed by the State in rejecting the case of the workman, are hyper technical. In fact a perusal of the reply so filed by the State before the learned Labour Court demonstrates that the factum of workman not completing more than 240 days continuous service in the year 1997 on account of his illness has not been disputed in so many words by the State, but the State has justified its act of not counting the period towards continuous service for which the workman was sick by enumerating the reasons which already have been elaborated by me above. 8. 8. Industrial Disputes Act is a benevolent legislation which aims towards protecting the interest of the workman. Section 25B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides as under:- “25B(1). A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in interrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.” 9. The above statutory provisions thus categorically demonstrate that inter alia period on account of sickness is to be taken into consideration while calculating continuous service. Now the expression used supra is “on account of sickness, or authorized leave”. In my considered view, a person can not comprehend that he is going to fall sick and in such situation, first he would got sanctioned his medical leave from the competent authority on the pretext that he is likely to fall ill. May be that in the present case, the workman had not got his leave period in the year 1997 post facto sanctioned from the competent authority but that, in my considered view, can be termed as an irregularity and not illegality. Even said irregularity can not deny the benefit of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act to a workman. Learned Labour Court has rightly held that notifications so issued by the State dealing with the leave on medical grounds are in derogation to the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court concurs with the findings which have been so returned by the learned Labour Court. Any notification which the State can issue for the furtherance of the cause, as is contained in the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, at the most can supplement the cause so contained inter alia in the Act but the same cannot supplant the cause as is contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Even otherwise, as I have already held above, the stand taken by the State, on the basis of which the period of sickness of workman was not taken into consideration while calculating continuous service is a hyper technical stand, which otherwise also is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Even otherwise, as I have already held above, the stand taken by the State, on the basis of which the period of sickness of workman was not taken into consideration while calculating continuous service is a hyper technical stand, which otherwise also is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. In view of above discussion, as there is not any infirmity in the award so passed by the learned Tribunal below, therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.