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

• B. Raghu Kiran & S.V. Kasi Visweswara Rao, Member

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.