JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by award dated 20.01.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case No. CIT 19/1995, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It has been submitted in the writ petition that the petitioner is a Nationalized Bank having Branches in the entire country and its regular staff is employed by following during procedure contemplated in the Rules prevailing in petitioner-Bank. 3. However, in order to clear the over burden of work, as per contingencies, casual and purely temporary arrangements are made by the Branch Manager of respective Branches by engaging daily wagers, who are never considered to be regular employee of the petitioner-Bank. 4. It has been stated by the petitioner that respondent- workman was earlier engaged by the Power House Branch of petitioner-Bank from 03.07.1991 to 17.09.1991 for a period of 62 days. Thereafter, after a considerably long period, he was engaged by the Branch Manager of M.I. Road Branch of petitioner-Bank from 07.04.1992 to 13.06.1992 for a period of 65 days. Thereafter, services of the respondent-workman were discontinued from M.I. Road Branch and again after a long intervals, he was engaged by Nehru Palace Branch of petitioner-Bank from 17.08.1992 to 30.11.1992 for a period of 80 days. The respondent-workman was not continued in the aforesaid Branch thereafter. After a lapse of around three and half months, respondent-workman was engaged in Tripolia Bazar Branch of petitioner-Bank from 04.03.1993 to 28.05.1993 for a period of 53 days. 5. As per the petitioner, respondent-workman has thus, worked on purely casual and daily wages basis for total period of 260 days in a period of around 2 years and that too, in four different Branches. His work was also not regular in nature and he had worked in such different Branches in different intervals. 6. It has been averred by the petitioner that from the date of termination i.e. 29.05.1993, the petitioner has never worked for 240 or more days in preceding calendar year, therefore, his services do not fall within the ambit of continuous services. 7. 6. It has been averred by the petitioner that from the date of termination i.e. 29.05.1993, the petitioner has never worked for 240 or more days in preceding calendar year, therefore, his services do not fall within the ambit of continuous services. 7. However, feeling aggrieved by termination dated 29.05.1993, the respondent-workman raised Industrial Disputes under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), which was ultimately referred to learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, where terms of reference were as to whether the action of management of Bank of Baroda is justified in terminating the services of Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatnagar, casual staff w.e.f. 29.05.1993 or not? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? 8. It has been submitted by the petitioner that although the respondent-workman had failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in last preceding year and ignoring the fact that working in different units/Branches could not have been clubbed, learned Tribunal has erroneously held the termination to be in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 and directed for reinstatement of the workman by maintaining continuity in service along with half of the back wages vide award dated 20.01.2000. Hence, petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition. 9. Counsel for the respondent-workman, on the contrary supported the impugned award dated 20.01.2000 by stating that in case Sundays and other permissible holidays are added in actual working days, then it would come out that the respondent- workman has worked for more than 240 days in last preceding calendar year from the date of his termination. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-workman that the petitioner-Bank cannot be absolved from its liability by stating that different Branches of the bank are totally independent Units and working of the respondent-workman in such different Branches cannot be clubbed. As per the counsel for the respondent, all the Branches are working under the same management at National level, therefore, merely on account of the fact that working of the petitioner was in different Branches, he cannot be deprived of the protection granted to a workman under the provisions of I.D. Act. As per the counsel for the respondent, all the Branches are working under the same management at National level, therefore, merely on account of the fact that working of the petitioner was in different Branches, he cannot be deprived of the protection granted to a workman under the provisions of I.D. Act. He has also stated that even if, it is assumed that the respondent-workman had not worked for more than 240 days, even then the provisions of Section 25G and 25H would apply and learned Tribunal has thus committed no mistake in passing the impugned award. 10. In the instant writ petition, the impugned award was stayed and thereafter application under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 filed by the respondent-workman was allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2001. Since then, the respondent workman has been getting last wages drawn pursuant to order dated 09.05.2001. 11. I have examined the record of the writ petition and have also heard both the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Bare perusal of the statements of claim filed by respondent- workman would make it clear that his working was not regular and he has worked in different intervals in different Branches of petitioner-Bank. Although, learned counsel for the respondent- workman has attempted to counter submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner by stating that in case, permissible holidays and Sundays are taken into account; then his actual working would be more than 240 days in last preceding calendar year from the date of termination. Even if, such contention of learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, even then it would come out that even on clubbing the working of the respondent- workman in different Branches of petitioner-Bank in last preceding year from his date of termination, then also it is reflected that he had worked actually for 178 days and there were 48 Sundays during such working period and 12 permissible holidays were claimed by learned counsel for the respondent-workman. Thus, even if the contention of respondent is accepted, the total period of adding the actual workings Sundays and other holidays would come to 238 days, which is admittedly less than 240 days. Thus, even on facts, the respondent-workman has utterly failed to make out that he had rendered continuous service of 240 days or more days in last preceding calendar year. 13. Thus, even on facts, the respondent-workman has utterly failed to make out that he had rendered continuous service of 240 days or more days in last preceding calendar year. 13. In order to strengthen his submission, counsel for the petitioner-Bank has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation Vs. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation reported in AIR 1986 SC 458 , and has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only those holidays and Sundays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days, on which the workman could be said to have actually worked, where the workman has been paid or such Sundays and holidays. But in the instant case, the respondent-workman has never received any payment for the Sundays and other holidays in the preceding calendar year. Therefore, the respondent-workman cannot claim that such Sundays and Holidays should also be counted for taking into consideration his total working days. 14. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda, Kota Vs. Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC, Kota and anr. reported in 2010(2) WLC(Raj.) 675. In the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of this Court has referred the judgments in the cases of Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. Sanjay reported in JT 2009(9) SC 475, Union of India and Ors. Vs. Jummaasha Diwan reported in 2006(8) SCC 544 , DGM Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Illias Abdulrehman reported in 2005(2) SCC 183 , Kusheshwar Mandal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2004(3) CDR 1810 (Raj.) and Sarvajanik Nirman Mazdoor Sangh Bhilwara and ors. Vs. Judge Labour Court, Udaipur & Ors. reported in RLW 2005 (2) Raj. 1070. 15. After referring the aforesaid judgments, it has been observed by the Division Bench that the engagement of the workman was by the Branch Manager only therefore, it cannot be held that the workman was engaged by any other authority other than Branch manager of the respective Branches. reported in RLW 2005 (2) Raj. 1070. 15. After referring the aforesaid judgments, it has been observed by the Division Bench that the engagement of the workman was by the Branch Manager only therefore, it cannot be held that the workman was engaged by any other authority other than Branch manager of the respective Branches. It was further observed that working under different Branches/Units and establishments is to be taken only for the purpose of payment of Bonus Act, however, for the purpose of ID of such branches are to be taken as different Units. Therefore, considering the provision of Section 25B of the Act it was observed that since the workmen have been working under different Branches, their total working days cannot be taken into consideration for determining continuous service. 16. In addition to above, it has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that burden of proving the service of more than 240 days in a calendar year is upon the workman, however, in the instant case, the workman has utterly failed to discharge his burden. 17. It has also been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that merely stating that there was violation of Section 25G and H of the Act, is not sufficient on the part of the workman and he is required to lead evidence that any workman, who was engaged after him was retained but services of the respondent-workman were terminated. He is also required to prove that even after his termination, ignoring the claim of the respondent-workman, any other workman was given preference and was engaged. However, no such evidence was produced by the respondent-workman. Hence, case of Section 25 G and H is also not made out in favour of the respondent-workman. In order to support his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Union Bank Employees Association Vs. Union Bank of India reported in RLW 2002(3)(Raj.) 1366. 18. In the light of the above discussion, it becomes abundantly clear that learned Industrial Tribunal has committed serious irregularity by not properly appreciating scope of provision of Industrial Disputes Act and even in the facts where the respondent-workman could not even prove his continuous working for more than 240 days in a calendar year, provision of Section 25F have wrongly been applied. That apart, although there was virtually no evidence to support the case of respondent-workman, award has been passed in favour of the respondent-workman by giving perverse findings. 19. Hence, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, this writ petition succeeds and award dated 20.01.2000 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case CIT No. 19/1995 is hereby quashed. 20. Accordingly the writ petition is hereby allowed. 21. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 22. There shall be no order as to costs.