HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.14124 of 2000 ORDER: The award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D. No.31 of 1996 dated 19.08.1999, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 2- A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking relief of reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service on the ground that the requirements of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act was not complied with though he had put in more than 240 days of service. While the petitioner contended that he had worked for 416 days (on the basis of a certificate issued in Ex.W-1 by the Assistant Welfare Officer), the Tribunal referred to Ex.M-4 to hold that the workman worked only for 375 days. The Tribunal went into extraneous questions as to whether an appointment order was issued to the petitioner; whether he worked in a regular post or not; whether there was a vacancy in the post where he worked in different spells; and the factum of there being a break in his service. The Tribunal held that, since the workman could not clarify these questions, it could not be said that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. An award was passed rejecting the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act prohibits a workman, who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer, to be retrenched by that employer until: a. the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. b. The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay or any part thereof in excess of six months. It is only if a workman has been in continuous service of a employer for not less than one year would the conditions stipulated in Section 25-F require compliance. Section 25-B defines “continuous service” and, under sub-section (2) thereof, where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year, if the workman, during the 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 240 days. The requirement of continuous service of one year would be satisfied if the workman has worked under an employer for 242 days in the period of twelve months preceding his termination from service. Once a workman has been held to have completed 240 days of service in the twelve months period preceding his termination, non-compliance with the requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F would render such termination abinitio void. The Tribunal has been swayed by matters extraneous to the question in issue and has rejected the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement on grounds that he worked during the suspension period of another employee; he had not produced the appointment order etc. Section 25-F merely requires a workman to be engaged by an employer, irrespective of the nature of the employment be it regular or casual or on daily wage basis. The consequences of non-compliance with Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is that the workman is required to be reinstated in the very same post which he held hitherto i.e., prior to his termination. As the Tribunal has not adverted to the actual issue and has been swayed by considerations extraneous to the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement with full back wages, I consider it appropriate to set aside the award and remand the matter back for its consideration afresh. Since the dispute relates to the year 1986 it is but appropriate that the Tribunal hear both parties and passes an award afresh, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 05.08.2010 MRKR