1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour-Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh, in I.D.R No. 202 of 1988, decided on 8 June, 1991. The petitioner worked as chowkidar on daily wages with effect from 4 August, 1986 to 24 November, 1986 and from 2 March, 1987 to 28 March, 1987, and again as chowkidar on 2 April, 1987 to 24 July, 1987. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were not taken in by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner worked for less than 240 days in a year and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
2. According to the petitioner, he worked with the respondent from 27 April, 1986 to 24 June, 1987, i.e, for a period of more than 240 days and that the finding of the Labour Court that he worked for less than 240 days is erroneous and that the holidays have to be counted for the purpose of counting 240 days as continuous service and if the holidays are to be counted as working days, the petitioner worked for more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. In the written statement filed by the respondent, the respondent has given the number of working days actually worked and paid by the respondent in each month. The number of working days for which the petitioner was paid daily wages came to only 196 days. From the averments made in the written statement, it is clear that the petitioner was not paid the wages for Sundays and other holidays. Therefore, the Sundays and other holidays for which no wages have been paid, cannot be counted while computing the continuous service of the petitioner. It has been held in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. American Express International Banking Corporation [1985 (2) L.L.N 817], that in Paras. 5 and 6, at page 821:
“The expression ‘actually worked under the employer’ cannot mean those days only when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute, Standing Orders, etc …. Thus, Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the workmen could be said to have actually worked….”
3. This position has been referred to by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajender Kumar Sharma [1993 (2) L.L.N 848] follows:
“We are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the Tribunal for a decision afresh. Neither the decision of this court in daily rated casual labour nor the proceedings of the Post and Telegraphs Department issued on 10 February, 1988, say that the casual labourers are entitled to be paid even on the days they do not work. The approach of the Tribunal that since the aforesaid proceeding of the Post and Telegraph Department does not provide otherwise, the respondent is entitled to be paid even for the days he did not work (i.e, Saturdays, Sundays and Gazetted holidays) does not appear to be sound.”
4. Thus, it is clear that the holidays, i.e, Sundays and other Gazetted holidays, during which no wages have been paid to the workman cannot be counted for the purpose of determining whether the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days. If the holidays for which no wages have been paid by the employer are excluded, the working days of the petitioner fall short of 200 days. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not worked for a period of 240 days in a year, before the order of termination.
5. I do not, therefore, find any ground warranting interference with the award passed by the Labour Court. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.