JUDGMENT :

A.K. Padhi, J. - In these two writ applications as common question of law arise for consideration both the matter were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts of O.J.C. No. 2211 of 1988 are the Petitioner under intermittent orders of appointment for specified periods continued in service from 13-3-1980 till 18-7-1988 as a conductor under opp. party No. 1. The Petitioner comes within the definition of "workman" and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are applicable to him. It has been asserted in the writ application that the Petitioner had served for 240 days in each financial years and as such his service comes within the definition of "continuous service" as envisaged u/s 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is claimed that the Petitioner was selected by the Divisional Selection Committee and his appointment should have been regularised. On 26-9-1986 a notice was served on him purported to be a notice u/s 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act giving him one month's prior notice of retrenchment. The relevant portions of Annexure-I, the notice, is as follows:

You are directed to note that your Services will not be required with effect