( 1 ) LEARNED advocate Ms. Mandavia is appearing for the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. D. M. Thakkar is appearing for M/s. Thakkar Associates for respondent No. 1 to 3. Rule, Mr. D. M. Thakker Learned Advocate on behalf of respondents waives the service of rule with the consent of both the Learned Advocates, the matter has been taken up for final hearing today. In the present petition, the award passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 247, 248 and 265 of 1985 dated 30th September, 1998 has been challenged wherein, the Labour Court, Surat has granted reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages of interim period. The respondents were appointed as a Seaman in the year 1980 and remained in service up to 6th August, 1983 and their service were terminated on 6th August, 1983. The said termination orders were challenged by the respondents-workmen before the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 247, 248 and 265 of 1985. The statement of claim was filed by the respondents-workmen and reply was submitted by the petitioner. Ms. Mandavia, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the labour court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that each workman has completed 240 days service during one year. She has also submitted that the daily wagers are not entitled to the benefit of sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She has also submitted that in case of daily wager, on account of day-to-day appointment, the provisions of sec. 2 (oo) (bb) are attracted and, therefore, sec. 25f is not applicable because the termination of daily wager does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contentions raised by Ms. Mandavia were examined by the labour court and the labour court has come to the conclusion that the services of the respondents were terminated on 6th August, 1983 and the respondents workmen were completing period of three years service, more than 770 days continuous service and, therefore, in view of such findings, the labour court has held that sec. 25f was applicable. Before the labour court, the respondent workman has filed affidavit and the petitioner has examined the said workman. Thereafter, one Assistant Engineer was examined by the petitioner before the labour court. The labour court has considered the evidence on record and has found that each workman has completed 240 days continuous service within a period of one year. The labour court has also considered oral the evidence of the Assistant Engineer who was examined by the petitioner. After appreciating the evidence brought before it, the labour court has come to the conclusion that the said witness examined by the petitioner before it was having no personal knowledge as regards the matter and, therefore, said evidence is not helpful to the petitioner. The labour court has also considered the contention as regards provisions of section 2 (oo) (bb) which was raised by the petitioner and the labour court has come to the conclusion that such termination shall amount to retrenchment and the provisions of sec. 2 (oo) (bb) shall not be attracted and the same is not proved by the petitioner and, therefore, while terminating the services of each workman, indisputably, the petitioner has not followed the mandatory provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the orders of termination were set aside by the labour court and the reinstatement was granted with continuity of service with full back wages for the intervening period.

( 2 ) AS regards the contention of Ms. Mandavia that the daily wagers are not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said provisions are not applicable to such daily wagers, the view taken by the Honble apex court in case of MCD versus Pravinkumar Jain and Others reported in 1998 (II) LLJ 674 is required to be appr