The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of S.25-F and S.25J of the Industrial Disputes Act in determining the legality of the termination of service and the classification of the termination as retrenchment.

B.N. Patnaik, J.

The petitioner in O.P. No. 9597 of 1987 has challenged the judgment dated 23rd September 1991 of the learned Single Judge, by which the termination of service of respondent No.1 herein was quashed on the ground that the appellant has pot complied with the conditions of S.25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the termination being retrenchment in the eye of law.

2. The appellant is a private limited company mainly dealing in sale of building materials. It has a godown in Trichur Town. Respondent No.1 was employed in the godown of the petitioner as a watchman on probation for a period of six months on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 200/- with effect from 1-5-85 as per Ext. P1 letter. It is stipulated in Ext. P1 letter that his appointment shall be for a period of six months on an experimental basis. He was liable to be discharged from the service by giving one

month's notice. By a resolution of the Board of Directors the post of watchman was abolished with effect from 1-2-1986. On the basis of that decision the service of the first respondent was terminated by communication dated 29-1-1987. He was offered one month's salary in lieu of notice. He refused to accept the same. It is contended by the appellant that the termination of service was necessitated on account of the fact that the godown was wholly insured and the service of a watchman was not required.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Trichur, the second respondent herein, under S.18 (2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. By Ext. PS order, the Appellate Authority, the second respondent, held that the first respondent had completed a period of more than 240 days spreading over a period of 12 calendar months. S.25-F occurring in Chapter VA of the Act is applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as the termination in this case amounts to retrenchment. S.25J of the Act provides that the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen in so far as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Act. Having observed that respondents No.1 was a workman, the second respondent found that his services have been terminated in contravention of the provisions of S.25 -F of the Act and so the same is not legal and valid. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to reinstate respondent No.1 in service with continuity of service with back wages amounting to R.3780.65 within 30 days from the date of the order. It was further directed that in case the first respondent is not reinstated in service, the appellant shall pay Rs. 4380.85 including the backwages towards compensation.

4. The appellant filed the Original Petition challenging the order of the appellate authority, Ext. P3, on various grounds. The learned Single Judge while confirming the order of the appellate authority (Ext. P3) held that the petitioner had continuous service of more than 240 days. S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable in this case. 'The learned Single Judge relied on a decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Purnachandra Rao (NV) & Ors. v. Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society, Vijayawada & Ors. (1987) 2 LLJ 237) and came to the conclusion that the appellate authority constituted under S.18(2) of the Kerala Commercial Shops and Establishments Act is competent to invoke the provisions contained in the Act in settling the rights and liabilities of employees in so far as it relates to lay-off and retrenchment. The termination of the service of respondent No.1 being one in the nature of retrenchment is illegal inasmuch as admittedly the provisions of S.25-F of the Act were not complied with.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended, inter alia, that the termination of the service of respondent No.1 in