- (1.) THE services of respondent No. 2 have been terminated vide order dated December 31, 1982. THE order was challenged before the Labour Court in a reference and the Labour Court was pleased to set aside the order of termination having been passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. THE said order was also challenged by filing a writ petition before the learned single Judge. After appreciation of material placed before him, he has reached to the conclusion that inspite of the opportunity given to the appellant- employer, no evidence has been led by the employer to show that the workman has not worked for more than 240 daysinthepreceding year. THE Court has also reached to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the Labour Court is in accordance with law and there is no error or illegality in the award passed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed 2l THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No. 2 was in the service of Urban Improvement Trust. THE Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur was dissolved and new entity in the name of Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur was constituted, by virtue of Section 101(h) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. It cannot be held that the respondent No. 2 became the employee of the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and thus the award passed on September 16, 1998 the Labour Court and the judgment given on May 4, 1999 by the learned single Judge against Jaipur Development Authority is contrary to the provisions of Section 101(h) of the Act. It may be seen by virtue of Section 101(h) of the Act, every officer or servant who was working under the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur stood transferred to the Jaipur Development Authority temporarily for a period of six months or for the period which may be extended otherwise. THE Jaipur Development Authority after expiry of period of six months or after such extended period had an authority to do the screening of the employee for the purposes of obsorbing the services of the ex-employee of the Urban Improvement Trust. In the present case, before any order of absorption could be passed by the Jaipur Development Authority, the services of the respondent No. 2 was terminated on December 31, 1982. Thus, the services of the respondent No. 2 was terminated when he was an employee transferred from Urban Improvement Trust to Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. It is well established and settled law that the services of transferred employee from the place from which he was transferred shall be counted for the purposes of service benefits. As the services of respondent No. 2 were transferred before any order in exercise of power under Section 101 (h) of the Act to be passed, his services rendered at Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur shall also be counted for the purposes of finding out whether workman has worked for more than 240 days as required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. THE appellant has not placed any material as to why the services rendered by respondent No. 2 in Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur shall not be counted. Thus, we have also to rely upon the finding arrived at by the Labour Court and also that by the learned single Judge that the workman has worked for more than 240 days with his employer and that there was non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. THE appeal is without any substance and it is hereby dismissed.;