Casual Workman Not Entitled to Section 25F Protection Without 240 Days’ Service | HC

Case Details: Regional Manager vs. Presiding Officer - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 81 (HC-Rajasthan)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Anand Sharma, J.
• Rupin K. Kala for the Petitioner.
• M.F. Baig for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent-workman was engaged on a purely casual and daily wages basis for the total period of 260 days in a period of around 2 years and that too, in four different branches of the petitioner-bank. His work was also irregular, and he had worked in different branches at different intervals.

The Respondent was terminated. Then, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Tribunal held that the termination violated section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed the reinstatement of the workman.

The High Court observed that since the respondent had been working under different branches, their total working days could not be taken into consideration for determining continuous service.

Further, the High Court observed that, since the respondent never received any payment for Sundays and other holidays in the preceding calendar year, he could not claim that such Sundays and holidays should also be counted for taking into consideration his total working days.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the respondent could not prove continuous working for more than 240 days in a calendar year, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had been wrongly applied. Therefore, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was to be quashed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Award of Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in case CIT No. 19/1995 award dated 20.01.2000 (para 19) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation 1985 taxmann.com 1300 (SC) (para 13)
• Bank of Baroda v. Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC [2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 675] (para 14)
• Haryana State Co-operative Supply Marketing Federation Ltd v. Sanjay [JT 2009 (9) SC 475] (para 14)
• Union of India v. Jummasha Diwan 2006 taxmann.com 3016 (SC) (para 14)
• DGM Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Illias Abdulrehman [2005] 2004 taxmann.com 3698 (SC) (para 14)
• Kusheshwar Mandal v. State of Rajasthan [2004 (3) CDR 1810 (Raj)] (para 14)
• Sarvajanik Nirman Mazdoor Sangh Bhilwara v. Judge Labour Court [RLW 2005 (2) Raj 1070] (para 14)
• Union Bank Employees Association v. Union Bank of India [RLW 2002 (3) (Raj) 1366] (para 17).