JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. :— Santosh Gupta, the appellant workman (a woman), was employed in the State Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala, from July 13, 1973, till August 21, 1974, when her services were terminated. Though there were some breaks in service for a few days, those breaks are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case though we may have to advert to them in another connection. Despite the breaks, the workman had admittedly worked for 240 days, in the year preceding August 21, 1974. According to the workman the termination of her services was retrenchment within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since it did not fall within any of the 3 excepted cases mentioned in Section 2 (oo). Since there was retrenchment, it was bad for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand the contention of the management was that the termination of services was not due to discharge of surplus labour. It was due to the failure of the workmen to pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed in the service. Therefore, it was not retrenchment within the meaning of