JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, in the course of execution of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference No.78 of 2014, titled Tilak Raj versus Sericulture Officer (Tassar), District Mandi, H.P., dated 18.07.2006, learned Executing Court issued the direction to the respondents to grant regularization to the petitioner with effect from the year 1999 instead of 24.07.2008. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General has taken the Court through the Award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Executing Court. He submitted that perversity which is writ large on the face of the order passed by the learned Executing Court is that it erred in not appreciating that all that the learned Labour Court held was that the intermittent breaks given to the petitioner in service from 2001 to 2005 except the year 2002 were fictional in nature and it was observed that they shall have no effect on seniority and continuity of the service of the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General, thereafter, referred to the Mandays Chart, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 and which is not in dispute and submitted that in terms of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, as the petitioner was completing 240 days in eight years only in the year 2008, the regularization was rightly conferred upon the petitioner from 24.07.2008. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- claimant submitted that in the light of the fact that the learned Labour Court had ordered the continuity in service without consequential benefits except back wages, the petitioner was entitled for regularization upon completion of eight years of service at least from the year 1999 and in the absence of the same being done by the Authorities, learned Executing Court rightly directed the Authorities to do the needful. 4. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant and have also carefully gone through the Award as well as the order passed by the learned Executing Court. 5. The relief that was granted by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman, as is spelled out in Para-18 of the Award, reads as under:- “18. 5. The relief that was granted by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman, as is spelled out in Para-18 of the Award, reads as under:- “18. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, petitioner is held to be in continuous uninterrupted service with the respondent from the date of his initial engagement and that intermittent breaks in service from 2001 to 2005 except year 2002 in which petitioner had been worked-for-more-than-240 days as reflected in mandays chart Ex: RWI/C were fictional in nature which shall have no effect on the seniority and continuity of service of the petitioner and that seniority of petitioner shall be reckoned from the date of his initial date of Engagement. Accordingly, claim of petitioner is hereby allowed in part and reference is accordingly answered in favour of petitioner. The petitioner shall thus be deemed to be in continuous service of respondent with all consequential benefits except back wages. He shall, however, be considered for regularization by respondent at the time when his juniors who have since been regularized as per policy governing daily wagers as framed by State Govt. and operative from time to time. The parties, however, shall bear their own costs.” 6. In terms of the relief granted by the learned Labour Court, the claimant was held entitled to be in continuous and uninterrupted service with the petitioners from the date of his initial engagement and intermittent breaks in service from the years 2001 to 2005 except the year 2002, in which the claimant had worked for more than 240 days, were held to be fictional breaks in nature with further observation that they shall have no effect on seniority and continuity of the service of claimant and that seniority of the claimant shall be reckoned from the date of his initial date of engagement. 7. In this backdrop, if one peruses the Mandays Chart (Annexure P-2), one finds that in terms thereof, the respondent/claimant was initially engaged in the year 1986, but in the said Calendar year, he worked only for 26 days. 7. In this backdrop, if one peruses the Mandays Chart (Annexure P-2), one finds that in terms thereof, the respondent/claimant was initially engaged in the year 1986, but in the said Calendar year, he worked only for 26 days. Thereafter, in the year 1987, he worked for 142 days, in the year 1988 for 157 days, in the year 1989 for 119 days, in the year 1990 for 120 days, in the year 1991 for 130 days, in the year 1992 for 167 days, in the year 1993 for 214 days, in the year 1994 for 262 days, in the year 1995 for 156 days, in the year 1996 for 96 days, in the year 1997 for 152 days, in the year 1998 for 269 days, in the year 1999 for 253 days, in the year 2000 for 285 days, in the year 2001 for 182 days, in the year 2002 for 287 days, in the year 2003 for 149 days, in the year 2004 for 190 days, in the year 2005 for 196 days, in the year 2006 for 247 days, in the year 2007 for 290 days, in the year 2008 for 327 days, in the year 2009 for 365 days, in the year 2010 for 365 days, in the year 2011 for 365 days, in the year 2012 for 366 days, in the year 2013 for 362 days and in the year 2014 for 254 days. 8. Therefore, as between the years 1986 to 1997, the petitioner has put in more than 240 days in only two years, i.e. 1993 and 1994. However, in terms of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court, it has not returned the finding in favour of the claimant to the effect that for the years relatable from the year 1986 upto 1997, the non-completion of 240 days in the Calendar year shall be treated as fictional breaks. This observation is relatable only to the years from 2001 to 2005. In this backdrop, if one again peruses the Mandays Chart, one finds that as from the year 1998 onwards, the claimant can be said to have completed more than 240 days in each Calendar year by conferring the benefit of the award upon the claimant by treating the non-completion of 240 days in the years 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005 to be fictional breaks. On these basis, as from the year 1998 onwards, the claimant completed eight years of service in the year 2005 and he at least is entitled for regularization with effect from 01.01.2006. This extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Executive Court by passing the impugned order. Learned Executing Court erred in not appreciating that grant of seniority from the initial date of engagement vis-a-vis regularization has to be construed along- with completion of 240 days in a Calendar year for number of years required as per the relevant Policy. This is more so in light of the fact that right of regularization incidentally does not accrue from the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, but from Regularization Policies of the State Government, which are notified by the Government from time to time to regularize daily wage Class-IV employees. 9. Accordingly, in light of the above observations this petition is partly allowed and order dated 09.05.2025, passed by the learned Executing Court is modified, to the effect that the claimant shall not be entitled to for regularization from the year 1999 and further he shall also not be entitled for regularization from 24.07.2008, that is the date of regularization conferred by the State, but services of the claimant shall be regularized with effect from 01.01.2006. Other benefits to accrue upon the claimant in terms of Award from the said date. 10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.