R. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Sandeep Marne, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 2 ) THE appellant (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') joined the service of the Central Railway (hereinafter to be referred as 'the railways') as casual Cook in the Catering Section of the Commercial Department, Central railway, Mumbai V. T. on April 21, 1988. The workman worked with the railways for the period from 21-4-1988 to 30-6-1988, 7-8-1988 to 14-5-1989, 6-4-1990 to 30-6-1990, 2-5-1991 to 30-6-1991. 3-4-1993 to 30-4-1993, 16-5- 1993 to 30-6-1993 and 7-4-1993 to 30-6-1994. The petitioner's services came to an end with effect from 1-7-1994. The dispute concerning the petitioner's termination was referred by the appropriate government to the Central government Industrial Tribunal No. 2. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 9-4-1999 held that the termination of the workman was not legal and justified and directed the railways to reinstate the workman with continuity and pay him all backwages. The railways challenged the award of the Industrial tribunal by filing writ petition. By an order dated 4-7-2003 the learned Single judge allowed the writ petition filed by the railways and set aside the award dated 9-4-1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the workman is in appeal before us.

( 3 ) THE reason that prevailed with the learned Single Judge in setting aside the award was that the workman was not in continuous service in the year preceding the date of termination. The learned Single Judge held that it was necessary that the workman had completed 240 and 120 days of service during the period of one year or six months as the case may be preceding the date of termination dated 1-7-1994. On consideration of the facts, the learned Single judge held that the workman had neither completed 240 days in a year nor 120 days in six months preceding the date of termination i. e. 1-7-1994. In view thereof, the learned Single Judge held that there was no question of breach of section 25f and he set aside the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

( 4 ) THAT the learned Single Judge was not right in construing the expression 'continuous service' to mean that the workman must have worked for 240 days or 120 days as the case may be in the year preceding the date of termination, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. , Ltd. vs. Ramanuj Yadav and others, (2003) 8 SCC 334.

( 5 ) WHEN the matter came up before the earlier Bench on May 4, 2005, the division Bench passed the order thus :

"we have heard this matter for some time. The judgment of the Supreme court in U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. vs. Ramanuj Yadav and ors. , (2003) 8 SCC 334, was relied upon by the learned counsel for the workmen which prima facie supports his contention that it is not necessary to establish that the workmen has worked for 240 days during the period of 12 months preceding before the date of termination. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that he needs time to consider the judgment. Adjourned to 20-6-2005. Both parties agree that the appeal may be disposed of at the admission Stage itself. "

( 6 ) IN U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court discussed section 25b as existed originally and so also after amendment by the industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964. In paras 9, 10 and 11 of the report, it was held thus :

"9. The amending Act of 1964 deleted section 2 (eee), having incorporated in section 25-B itself the definition of 'continuous service'. It also brought in the concept of 'preceding' twelve calendar months. The earlier definition did not mention preceding with reference to the period of twelve calendar months, it appears that the decision of this Court in sur Enamel and St