( 1 ) `one of the eternal conflicts out of which life is made up is that between the efforts of every man to get the most he can for his services, and that of a society, disguised under the name of Capital, to get his services for the least possible return. Combination on the one side is patent and powerful. Combination on the other is necessary and desirable counter part, if the battle is to be carried on in a fair and equitable way. . Justice Holmes.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the present writ petition are that the respondents - two workmen namely Sushila Premjibhai Majithiya and Shardaben C. Katariya [reference Nos. 67/83 and 68/83 respectively] were working with the petitioner-State Trading Corporation of India Limited [hereinafter referred to as, `the Corporation] with effect from 4th December, 1980 and their services were illegally terminated by the petitioner-Corporation with effect from 25th June, 1982 and 30th June, 1982 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said orders of termination, both the workmen moved the Labour Court, Rajkot vide Reference Nos. 67/83 and 68/83 respectively and the Labour Court has decided both these references by a common Award dated 8th November, 1990.

( 4 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the respondents-workmen have filed statement of claim and the petitioner-Corporation has filed written statement vide Exh. 6 and thereafter the respondents-workmen Sushilaben was examined vide Exh. 17 and petitioner-Corporation had examined Madhanlal P. Vohra vide Exh. 32. Thereafter, the Labour Court has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence which were on record and came to the conclusion that while terminating the service of the respondents-workmen though both the workman had completed 240 days continuous service during the last twelve calender months, prior to their termination even though admittedly the petitioner-Corporation has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, `the Act] and no notice or notice pay was given to the workmen and no retrenchment compensation were paid by the petitioner-Corporation to the respondents-workmen at the time of termination, and therefore, considering the fact that mandatory provisions have been violated by the petitioner-Corporation, the Labour Court has set-aside the termination orders and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondents-workmen on their original post alongwith full backwages from the date of their termination from service till their reinstatement in service, by an Order dated 8th November, 1990. The said award has been challenged by the petitioner-Corporation in the present writ petition and the said petition has been admitted by this Court on 28. 8. 1991 by issuing Rule and granting ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 6 (B) till 18th September, 1991. The said relief is extended from time to time by the order of this Court.

( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakkar appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation has raised the contention that there was a fix time appointment given to the respondents-workmen and by the afflux of time, their services came to be terminated which does not amount to retrenchment, considering the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act, and therefore, Section 25f has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the Labour Court has committed gross error in granting relief as prayed for by the respondents-workmen. He further submitted that the respondents-workmen were engaged on daily wages, and therefore, they are not `workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act, and thus, Section 25f is not applicable to the present case. He further submitted that the Labour Court has committed gross error in coming to the conclusion that the respondents-workmen have completed continuous service of 240 days, and the