JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Whether the period of 240 days as specified under Section 25-B (2) read with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short 'the Act’) is restricted to immediately preceding calendar year or the said provisions would be attracted even in cases where a workman has worked for 240 days in any calendar year preceding his termination, is the moot question involved in the present appeal?

2. Undisputedly, the appellant had been appointed in 1980 and his services have been dispensed with in the year 1990. He had worked for 240 days in calendar years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to 1989 and when his services were retrenched in the year 1991, he had not completed 240 days of service. The appellant approached the Labour Court, who set aside the order of retrenchment and ordered his reinstatement in service along with seniority and continuity in service, however back wages in service were denied.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent preferred writ petition before this Court which was allowed by the learned writ Court by concluding that the respondent had not been in continuous service for one year within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 25-B of the Act nor he had actually worked for 240 days under the employer during the period of 12 months, preceding the date of his retrenchment within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 25-B of the Act, therefore Section 25-F of the Act was not attracted in this case.

4. Before we proceed any further, it will be relevant to make note of the relevant provisions of the Act as attracted to the facts of the present case. Sections 2 (oo), 25-B and 25-F of the Act read thus:-

“[Sec.2(oo)“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or ]

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]”

“[25B. Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes 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 authorized 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 the employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve 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) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty 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, in the case of workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

Explanation.- For the purposes of clause(2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which-

(i) He has been laid-off under