( 1 ) THESE three petitions raise a common issue arising out of Court award passed in respect of the respondents in each of the cases dated 2 8/12/1995 holding the retrenchment of the respondents as illegal being incontravention of the provisions of Sec. 2g of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) and directing the management to reinstate the respondentworkmen in each matter.

( 2 ) THE only contention raised before the Court in these petitions is that as per the findings of the Labour Court, none of the workmen concerned was in continuous service of the petitioner for one year or more inasmuch as none of them have actually worked for 240 days in 12 months immediately preceding the date of retrenchment so as to take benefit of Sec. 25b of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Secs. 25b, 2sf, 25g and Sec. 25h are integral part of the Scheme conferring certain benefits on the employees whose services are being terminated on fulfilment of the conditions and one cannot be read independent of each other. According to him, as the condition precedent for invoking benefit of Sec. 25f of the Act is that the workman employed in any ind