IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 961 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/08/2005 in WP NO : 35042 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Divisional Electrical Engineer DPE. APSEB., Warangal District. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSEB., Warangal District. 3 The Chief Engineer, APSEB, Warangal ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 Mohd Jaleel S/o late Mohd Adam R/o Hanumakonda, Warangal District. 2 The Industrial tribunal cum Labour Court, rep by Presiding Officer, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SAMINENI KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned Advocate. Looking to the fact, it is very clear that the respondent- workman had worked for 42 days during the period commencing from 1-10-1987 to 30-12-1987 and thereafter he had worked for 205 days in 1988 calendar year up to 30-9-1988. The respondent-workman was relieved on 30-9-1988. Thus in the preceding year, in fact, he had worked for 240 days and, therefore, he can be said to be in continuous service for a period of 240 days as deﬁned in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). In view of the aforestated facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the workman had worked continuously for one year and, therefore, he was entitled to the protection under Section 25-F of the Act. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said order passed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd September, 2008. GRR