ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioners have assailed order dated 15.12.2017, passed by learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3475 of 2015. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged as daily wage workman by petitioner No.2 in the year 1991. From 1991 till 2006, respondent worked for 240 days in each calender year except for the year 1994 when he worked only for 228 days. The services of the respondent were regularized w.e.f. 26.10.2006 on the basis of regularization policy dated 09.06.2006. Respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. 3. Respondent approached this Court by filing CWP No. 9528 of 2013 claiming regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2000 in view of Mool Raj Upadhayay's case. He also claimed pensionary benefits. Respondent claimed benefit of Section 25 (B)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, on the basis of his illness w.e.f. 02.05.1994 to 31.08.1994. CWP No. 9528 of 2013 was transferred to learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and was registered as O.A. No. 3475 of 2015. 4. The claim of the respondent was contested by petitioners before learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25(B)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, as he had not reported his ailment within time and his plea was just an after thought. 5. Learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.3475 of 2015, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, in following terms :- "4. The applicant was suffering from right eye sight problem during the period 02.05.1994 to 31.08.1994. He had been under treatment per medical certificate Annexure P-2. The ailment of the applicant had forced him to be away from his work. He on account of his illness would be deemed to be in continuous service in view of the provisions of Section 25(B0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as under :- 25(B)(1) "a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is no illegal, or a lock out or an cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman." 5. The instructions to the contra that the benefit of deemed continuous service is only available to the indoor patient in violation of express provision is nonest. The applicant on account of deemed continuous service completed 10 years of service with 240 days upto the year 2000. 6. Consequently, the original application is allowed and the period from 02.05.1994 to 31.08.1994 of illness is deemed continuous service and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for conferment of work charge status on completion of 10 years service. needless to add that all consequential benefits including regularization, if any, shall follow." 6. By way of instant petition, petitioners have sought quashing of impugned order dated 15.12.2017, passed by learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that benefit of Section 25(B)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, could not have been granted to the respondent in view of the fact that respondent had not reported his ailment within time and it was only after a long lapse of four years that he produced the medical certificate, Annexure P-2. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 8. Respondent alongwith CWP No. 9528 of 2013 had annexed Annexure P-2, which was a medical certificate issued by Eye Surgeon of Referral Hospital, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. It was certified by way of this document that the respondent had remained ill w.e.f. 02.05.1994 to 31.08.1994 on account of acute infection in right eye. Additionally, by way of Annexure P-3, respondent had informed his office regarding the ailment. Medical prescriptions issued from Referral Hospital, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., were also placed on record. 9. There is nothing on record to suggest that documents collectively annexed as Annexure P-2 by respondent were false, fictitious or forged. The document, Annexure P-3, had also not been seriously disputed. In such circumstances, the grant of benefit to respondent under Section 25 (B)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, by learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 10. Respondent was a daily wage employee. He was not expected to do anything more than informing his employer through document, Annexure P-3. In such circumstances, the grant of benefit to respondent under Section 25 (B)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, by learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 10. Respondent was a daily wage employee. He was not expected to do anything more than informing his employer through document, Annexure P-3. Even otherwise, keeping in view the longevity of service rendered by respondent on daily wage basis w.e.f. 1991 to 2006, the stand taken by the petitioners to deny the benefit of Section 25 (B)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, to respondent merely on technical grounds is clearly unjustified. As per petitioners, respondent had rendered services of 228 days even in the year 1994. Meaning thereby that services were rendered by respondent w.e.f 01.01.1994 till 01.05.1994 and also w.e.f 01.09.1994 till end of the year. Respondent was allowed to rejoin by petitioners w.e.f. 01.09.1994, which belies its subsequent stand that the petitioners were not informed about the ailment of respondent. 11. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.