Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 43 of 1964	 Appeal by special leave from the award	 dated August 3	 1962 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal	 Dhanbad in Reference No. 56 of 1961. B. Sen and I.N. Shroff	 for the appellants. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah	 J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Award dated August 3	 1962	 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Dhanbad	 under the 448 449 The appellants are the Employers in relation to Digwadih Colliery and the respondents their workmen. The workmen did not appear in this Court. The dispute was whether the management of the colliery was justified in terminating the services of Jaldhar Singh with back wages. Jaldhar Singh was a 'badli ' workman which means (as defined by the Standing Orders of the colliery) a person appointed in the post of a permanent employee or probationer who is temporarily absent. He worked as badli in the calendar years 1959 and 1960 in different capacities. His employment was	 of course	 not continuous and there were six breaks of one day to a week in 1959 and eight breaks of one day to a week in 1960. However	 he worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year though with these interruptions. In January 1961 the colliery terminated Jaldhar Singh 's service without notice to him or payment of wages in lieu of notice or compensation. A dispute arising	 conciliation was attempted but failed and the reference followed. Before the Tribunal the workmen claimed that Jaldhar Singh was a permanent workman while the Employers contended that he was temporary. The Employers stated that as some of the permanent staff had become surplus	 there was no need of badli workmen and the termination of Jaldhar Singh 's service was justified. The workmen attempted to prove that Jaldhar Singh was permanent from 1960 and produced some documents from which they asked that this inference be drawn but the Tribunal did not agree. The workmen relied in the alternative upon section 25F of the Act because Jaldhar Singh had put in service of 240 days in each of the years and contended that as the Employers had failed to comply with the provisions of section 25F the termination of service was illegal and unjustified. The Employers submitted that section 25F could apply only if Jaldhar Singh had put in 240 days ' continuous service in any of the years 1959 or 1960. The service of Jaldhar Singh was admittedly terminated as there was no work for him and not on account of disciplinary action or voluntary retirement	 superannuation or ill health. This was thus a case of retrenchment as defined in section 2(00) of the Act. Section 25F	 which was inserted as part of Chapter VA	 with effect from October 24	 1953 by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1953 (43 of 1953) provides: "25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. 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 month 's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired	 or the workman has 450 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 appropriate Government	 The section, if it applied, had plainly not been complied with I in respect of any of the conditions precedents Jaldhar Singh, as seen already, had not been given any notice or wages in lieu of notice or paid compensation and no notice had been served on the appropriate Government. The termination of service would, in these circumstances, be illegal. But the Employers pointed, out that section 25F required two conditions: (a) continuous service and (b) service for not less than one year, and contended that these conditions were not fulfilled as the service was not continuous but broken. They relied on the definition of continuous service" in section 2(eee) which was introduced by the same amending Act: "2(eee) continuous service means uninterrupted service	 and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal	 or a lock out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;" The workmen	 on the other hand	 relied upon the provisions of section 25B which read: "25B. Definition of one year of continuous service. For the purposes of sections 25C and 25F	 a workman who	 during a period of 12 calendar months	 has actually worked in an industry for not less than two hundred and forty days shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service in the industry. Explanation. In computing the number of days on which a workman has actually worked in any industry	 the days on which (a) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the 	 or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment	 the largest number of days during 451 which he has been so laid off being taken into account for the purposes of this clause	 (b) he has been on leave with full wages	 earned in the	 previous year	 and (c) in the case of a female	 she has been on maternity leave; so however that the total period of such maternity leave shall not exceed twelve weeks	 shall be included. " The definitions in section 2 of the Act do not apply if there is anything repugnant in the subject or context and the question is whether the definition of "continuous service" can at all apply in considering section 25F when what is meant by the expression "one year of continuous service" in section 25F is	 by section 25B specially stated. If section 25B had not been enacted the contention of the Employers would have been unanswerable for the words of section 25F would then have plainly meant that the service should be for a period of 12 months without interruptions other than those stated in section 2(eee) itself. But section 25B says that for the purpose of section 25F a workman who	 in a period of twelve calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted. Therefore	 though section 25F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer	 both conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months. It is not necessary to read the definition of continuous service into section 25B because the fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. Mr. B. Sen drew our attention to the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1964 which was passed last December. By section 2(iii) of the amending Act of 1964 clause (eee) of the second section of the principal Act was omitted and by section 13	 for section 25B in the principal Act the following was substituted: "25B. For the purposes of this Chapter	 (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is. for that period	 in uninterrupted service	 including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal	 or a lock out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year 452 he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer (a) for a period of one year	 if the workman	 during a 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 (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days	 in any other case; The Explanation to section 25B is the same	 mutatis mutandis as before. Mr. Sen contended that the change in the law brought out his contention. We do not agree. The amended section 25B only consolidates the previous sections 25B and 2(eee) in one place	 adding some other matters which are not relevant to the present purpose	 but the purport of the new provisions is not different. In fact the amendment of section 25F of the principal Act by substituting in cl. (b) the words "for every completed year of continuous service" for the words "for every completed year of service" now removes a discordance between the unamended section 25B and the unamended cl. (b) of section 25B. Neither before these several changes nor after is uninterrupted service necessary if the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months. The only change in the new Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made. The last amendment now removes a vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25B. We accordingly hold that the decision under appeal is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

A badli workman worked as the appellant 's employee for more than 240 days	 with interruptions in each of the calendar years 1959 and 1960. He was retrenched in 1961. An industrial dispute having arisen	 it was referred to the Tribunal	 which held	 that the appellant was not justified in terminating the services of the workman as the provisions of section 25F of the were not com plied with. In its appeal to this Court	 the appellant contended that the section could apply only if the workman had put in 240 days ' continuous service in any of the years 1959 and 1960. HELD: Section 25B says that	 for the purpose of section 25F a workman who	 in a period of 12 calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted. Therefore	 though section 25F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer	 both the conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months. It is not necessary to read the definition of continuous service in section 2(fee) into section 25B	 because	 the fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of the twelve calendar months into continuous service for one complete year. [451C E] The amendments introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amend ment) Act	 1964 into sections 25B and 25F only removed the discordance between the unmended sections 25B and 25F (b) and vagueness which existed previously. But neither before the amendments nor after	 is uninterrupted service necessary	 if the total service is 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months. [452D E]