Sujoy Paul, J.

1. Heard.

2. Shri Chaturvedi submits that both the matters are identical and therefore, these matters may be decided on the basis of facts and pleadings mentioned in WP No. 1918/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award of Labour Court dated 19.12.2014 is bad in law. The Labour Court has erred in directing the reinstatement of the workman with 60% backwages. The stand of the employer before the Labour Court was that the workman was engaged for 89-89 days. Putting it differently, it is contended that workman was given one day's break on completion of every 89 days. Shri Chaturvedi contends that workman has not completed continuous service of 240 days. No other point is pressed by him. In nutshell, he contended that since workman has not completed 240 days' service, Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not attracted.

4. I have heard him at length.

5. The Court below in para 16 of the award opined that exhibit P/2 and P/3 are attendance sheet and salary statement respectively. These documents are for a period between July, 2005 to March, 2008. The Court below gave a finding of fact that during this period, workman has continuously worked with the employer and his work was satisfactory. His services are terminated by oral order on 01.04.2008. The Labour Court opined that it amounts to illegal retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of ID Act, 1947.

6. In my view, the point raised by Shri Chaturvedi is no more res integra. A break of one day given by employer after 89 days is treated by the courts as "artificial break". Such break cannot deprive the workman from the protection under Section 25F of ID Act. The workman was required to show that he has worked for more than 240 days preceding his termination. In the present case, there is a finding of fact in this regard recorded by Labour Court on the basis of attendance sheet and salary statement. Thus, there is no perversity in the order dated 19.12.2014.

7. The Apex court considered the aspect of artificial breaks and effect of non-compliance of Section 25Fand opined as under:-

Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, : (1980) 4 SCC 443

"9. Section 25F of the Act clearly designed to provide that a workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months; it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year.

14. It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) that he has actually worked for not less than 240 days during the preceding period of 12 calendar months."

Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mamni, : (2006) 9 SCC 434,

"9. The respondent was appointed from time to time. Her services used to be terminated on the expiry of 89 days on regular basis. However, it is noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each term. Such an action on the part of the appellant cannot be said to be bona fide. The High Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein stating:

"... It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid plea raised at the hands of the management on account of the fact that the factual position, which has not been disputed, reveals that the respondent workman was repeatedly engaged on 89 days' basis. It is, therefore, clear that the intention of the management was not to engage the respondent workman for a specified period, as alleged, but was to defeat the rights available to her under Section 25-F of the Act. The aforesaid practice at the hands of the petitioner management to employ the workman repeatedly after a notional break, clearly falls within the ambit and scope of unfair la