The pre-requisites for a valid retrenchment under Section 6-N read with Section 2(g) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are that the workman must have been employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and must have actually worked for not less than 240 days during those months.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner--workman, employed with the respondent No. 2 has raised an industrial dispute regarding alleged wrongful termination of his service w. e. f. August 31, 1981. The State of U. P. in exercise of its powers under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Allahabad vide order dated June 30, 1982. The Respondent No. 1 gave its award on May 30, 1985 and reference was answered against the petitioner. This award was published on August 20, 1985. This award has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order of termination of his service on the ground that the Respondent No. 2 has not given him one month notice or notice-pay and retrenchment compensation and hence same has been made in total violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the state Act ). The Respondent No. 1 decided and answered the reference against the petitioner on two grounds, namely that the petitioner has not actually worked for 240 days and secondly he did not remain in employment of the Respondent No. 2 for 12 calendar months. Though admittedly the petitioner has been paid wages of Sundays and holidays but the Labour court did not count paid holidays for the calculation of total days of working of the petitioner in this case.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed on September 22, 1980 and his services were terminated on august 31, 1981. From this fact it comes out that the petitioner has not worked during a period of twelve calendar months. Section 6-N of the State Act reads as under :

"6-N Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman--No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until :

(a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice : provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service :

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months ; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government. "

( 4 ) CONTINUOUS service has been defined in Section 2 (g) of the State Act, which reads as under :

"section 2 (g) ; Continuous Service: Before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service it must be shown first that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 months and next that during those calendar months he had worked for not less than 240 days. "

( 5 ) A combined reading of these two aforesaid Sections gives out that before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service it must be shown first that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 months and next that during these calendar months he had actually worked for not less than 240 days.

( 6 ) PRIOR to the amendment made in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act No. 36/ 64) the provisions regarding continuous service as contained in Section 2 (eee) read with Section 25-B were part materia with the provisions as contained in the State Act. Unamended provisions of central Act as contained in Section 2 (eee) and Section 25-B had been considered by the Apex court and it has also considered the provisions of Section 25-B of the Central Act as amended by act 36/64 in Surendra Kumar v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Co