( 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 industry must have been in continuous service for not less than one year under the employer and that condition having not been fulfilled, Sec. 25f would not apply. Once it is so held that there is no contravention of Sec. 25f or 25g, then, the question invoking Sec. 25h at the time of offering fresh employment for giving priority to retrenched worker also would not arise.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents joins the issue and contends that the provisions of Secs. 25f and 250 though part of same scheme for conferring protection on the employee whose services are terminated yet are independent and operate in different field for different purposes. Therefore, violation of either of the provisions of Sec. 25f or 25g would render the retrenchment invalid.

( 4 ) IT would be necessary for the purpose of considering the rival contentions of the parties to refer the relevant provisions of Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. Sections 25a, 25b, 25f and 25g and 25h read as under :- 25a. Application of Sees. 25c to 25e :- (1) Sections 25c to 25e inclusive shall not apply to industrial establishments to which Chapter V-B applies, or (a) to industrial establishments in which less than fifty workmen on an average per working day have been employed in the preceding calendar month; or (b) to industrial establishments which are of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittently. (2) If a question arises whether the work is performed therein only intermittently, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final. 25-B. Definition of continuous service :- For the purpose of this Chapter, - (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman ; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer - (a) for a period of one year, if the workman during a period of twelve calender months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than - (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty-nine days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than - (i) ninety-five days,