Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal Nos. 632 635 of 1980. Appeals by Special Leave from the Award dated 1 3 1979 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in I.D. No. 77 of 1977 and 67	 68 and 72 of 1977 respectively published in the Gazette of India dated 28 4 1979. R. K. Garg	 N. C. Sikri and A. K. Sikri for the Appellants. G. B. Pai	 O. C. Mathur and K. J. John for the Respondent No. 2. The Judgment of V. R. Krishna Iyer and O. Chinnappa Reddy. JJ. was delivered by Chinnappa Reddy	 J. R. section Pathak	 J. gave a separate opinion. 792 CHINNAPPA REDDY	 J. The facts of the four appeals before us (except the cases of Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala	 two out of the seven appellants in Civil Appeal No. 633 of 1980) are almost identical with the facts in Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala decided by this Court on April 29	 1980. Not unnaturally the appellants claim that they should be given the same reliefs as were given to the workman in that case	 but which have been denied to them by the Labour Court in the instant cases. The Labour Court found	 as a fact	 that except in the cases of three workmen	 section C. Goyal	 Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala	 the termination of the services of the remaining appellants workmen was in violation of the provisions of section 25F of the and therefore invalid and inoperative. But	 as the termination of their services was a consequence of their failure to pass the tests prescribed for permanent absorption into the service of the Bank and as it was thought their reinstatement would have the effect of equating them with workmen who had qualified for permanent absorption by passing the test	 the Labour Court refused to give the workmen the relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages	 but	 instead	 directed payment of compensation of six months ' salary to each of the workmen	 in addition to the retrenchment compensation. The appellants claim that they should be awarded the relief of reinstatement with full back wages as was done in the case of Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala (supra) and other earlier cases decided by this Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for the employer contended that non compliance with the requirements of section 25F of the did not render the termination of the service of a workman ab initio void but only made it invalid and inoperative and that the Court	 when setting aside the termination of the services of a workman on the ground of failure to comply with the provisions of section 25F	 had full discretion not to direct reinstatement with full back wages	 but	 instead	 to direct the payment of suitable compensation. The learned counsel invited our attention to cases where such discretion had been exercised and to other cases arising under sections 33 and 33A of the where it was held that discharge of workmen during the pendency of proceedings	 without the previous permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding was pending was not ab initio void and that the Labour Court or the Tribunal was not bound to direct reinstatement merely because it was found that there was a violation of section 33. 793 In Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala	 (supra) the facts of which case were identical with the facts of the cases before us	 this Court found "that the discharge of the workman on the ground that she did not pass the test	 which would have enabled her to be confirmed	 was retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) and	 therefore	 the requirements of section 25F had to be complied with". On that finding	 the relief which was awarded was: "the order of the Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court	 New Delhi	 is set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated with full back wages". Earlier	 in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer Labour Court	 Orissa and Ors.	 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrachud	 Goswami and Gupta JJ	 on a finding that there was a contravention of the provisions of section 25F of the 	 affirmed the award of the Lower Court directing reinstatement with full back wages. In another case M/s. Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal	 Haryana and Ors.	 Krishna Iyer and Desai JJ found that there was retrenchment without compliance with the prescribed conditions precedent. Therefore	 they said "the retrenchment was invalid and the relief of reinstatement with full back wages was amply deserved". In M/s. Swadesamitran Limited	 Madras vs Their Workmen dealing with an argument that even if the impugned retrenchment was justified	 reinstatement should not have been ordered	 Gajendragadkar	 Subba Rao and Das Gupta JJ observed: "Once it is found that retrenchment is unjustified and improper it is for the tribunals below to consider to what relief the retrenched workmen are entitled. Ordinarily	 if a workman has been improperly and illegally retrenched he is entitled to claim reinstatement. The fact that in the meanwhile the employer has engaged other workmen would not necessarily defeat the claim for reinstatement of the retrenched workmen; nor can the fact that protracted litigation in regard to the dispute has inevitably meant delay	 defeat such a claim for reinstatement. This Court has consistently held that in the case of wrongful dismissal	 discharge or retrenchment	 a claim for reinstatement cannot be defeated merely because time has lapsed or that the employer has engaged fresh hands (Vide :The Punjab National Bank Ltd. vs The All India Punjab National Bank Employees ' 794 Federation ; and National Transport and General Co. Ltd. V. The Workmen (Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1956 decided on January 22	 1957). " In State Bank of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money	 a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrachud	 Krishna Iyer and Gupta JJ held that a certain order of retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of section 25F and was	 therefore	 invalid and inoperative. After so holding	 they proceeded to consider the question of the relief to be awarded. They observed: "What follows ? Had the State Bank known the law and acted on it	 half a month 's pay would have concluded the story. But that did not happen. And now	 some years have passed and the Bank has to pay	 for no service rendered. Even so	 hard cases cannot make bad law. Reinstatement is the necessary relief that follows. At what point ? In the particular facts and circumstances of this case	 the respondent shall be put back where he left off	 but his new salary will be what he would draw were he to be appointed in the same post today de novo. As for benefits if any	 flowing from service he will be ranked below all permanent employees in that cadre and will be deemed to be a temporary hand upto now. He will not be allowed to claim any advantages in the matter of seniority or other priority inter se among temporary employees on the ground that his retrenchment is being declared invalid by this Court. Not that we are laying down any general proposition of law	 but make this direction in the special circumstances of the case. As for the respondent 's emoluments	 he will have to pursue other remedies	 if any". We do not propose to refer to the cases arising under section 33 and 33A of the or to cases arising out of references under sections 10 and 10A of the . Nor do we propose to engage ourselves in the unfruitful task of answering the question whether the termination of the services of a workman in violation of the provisions of section 25F is void ab initio or merely invalid and inoperative	 even if it is possible to discover some razor 's edge distinction between the Latin 'Void ab initio ' and the Anglo Saxon 'invalid and inoperative '. Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter ' statutes. Welfare statutes must	 of necessity	 receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of 795 mischief	 the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions. 'Void ab initio '. 'invalid and inoperative ' or call it what you will	 the workmen and the employer are primarily concerned with the consequence of striking down the order of termination of the services of the workmen. Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis a vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance	 the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums: the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations	 there is a vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. The Court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The Court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other exceptional cases the Court may mould the relief	 but	 ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True	 occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that	 more often than not. comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted. In the cases before us we are unable to see any special impediment in the way of awarding the relief. The Labour Court appears to have thought that the award of the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would put these workmen on a par with who had qualified for permanent absorption by passing the prescribed test and that would create dissatisfaction amongst the latter. First	 they can never be on par since reinstatement would not qualify them for permanent absorption. They would continue to be temporary	 liable to be retrenched. Second	 there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that their reinstatement would be a cause for dissatisfaction to anyone. There is no hint in the record that any undue burden would be placed on the employer if the same relief is granted as was done in Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala (supra). The cases of Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala were treated by the Labour Court as distinct from the cases of all the other appellants 796 on the ground that	 though they had worked for more than two hundred and forty days in the preceding twelve months	 they had not been in employment for one year. It appears that Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala were in the employment of the Bank from May 4	 1974 to January 29	 1975 and had worked for 258 and 266 days respectively during that period. As the period from May 4	 1974 to January 29	 1975 was not one year	 it was conceded before the Labour Court that there was no violation of the provisions of section 25F of the . Before us	 the concession was questioned and it was argued that there was non compliance with the requirements of section 25F of the Act. Since the facts were not disputed	 we entertained the argument and heard the counsel on the question. The concession was apparently based on the decision of this Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. vs Their Workmen. That decision was rendered before section 25B	 which defines continuous service for the purposes of Chapter VA of the was recast by Act 36 of 1954. The learned counsel for the employer submitted that the amendment made no substantial difference. Let us take a look at the statutory provisions. section 25 F	 then and now	 provides that 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 certain conditions are fulfilled. section 25 B 's marginal title is 'Definition of continuous Service '. To the extent that it is relevant section 25 B(2) as it now reads is as follows: "Where a workman is not in continuous service. . for a period of one year or six months	 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; (b). . . Explanation. . . The provision appears to be plain enough. Section 25 F requires that a workman should be in continuous service for not less than one year 797 under an employer before that provision applies. While so	 present section 25 B(2) steps in and says that even if a workman has not been in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year	 he shall be deemed to have been in such continuous service for a period of one year	 if he has actually worked under the employer for 240 days in the preceding period of twelve months. There is no stipulation that he should have been in employment or service under the employer for a whole period of twelve months. In fact	 the thrust of the provision is that he need not be. That appears to be the plain meaning without gloss from any source. Now	 section 25 B was not always so worded. Prior to Act 36 of 1964	 it read as follows : "For the purposes of Section 25 F and 25 F	 a workman who	 during a period of twelve 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 's continuous service in the industry. Explanation. . . " The difference between old 25 B and present 25 B is patent. The clause "where a workman is not in continuous service . for a period of one year" with which present section 25 B(2) so significantly begins	 was equally significantly absent from old section 25 B. Of the same degree of significance was the circumstance that prior to Act 36 of 1964 the expression "Continuous Service" was separately defined by section 2(eee) as follows: "(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 lock out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;" section 2(eee) was omitted by the same Act 36 of 1964 which recast section 25 B. section 25 B as it read prior to Act 36 of 1964	 in the light of the then existing section 2(eee)	 certainly lent itself to the construction that a workman had to be in the service of the employer for a period of one year and should have worked for not less than 240 days before he could claim to have completed one year 's completed service so as to attract the provisions of section 25 F. That precisely was what was decided by this Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. vs Their Workmen (supra). The Court said: "On the plain terms of the section (section 25 F) only a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than 798 one year under an employer is entitled to its benefit. 'Continuous Service ' is defined in section 2(eee) as meaning 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. What is meant by "one year of continuous service ' has been defined in section 25B. Under this section a workman who during a period of twelve calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less 240 days shall be deemed to have completed service in the industry. . . The position (therefore) is that during a period of employment for less than 11 calendar months these two persons worked for more than 240 days. In our opinion that would not satisfy the requirement of section 25B. Before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and	 next that during those 12 calendar months had worked for not less than 240 days. Where	 as in the present case	 the workmen have not at all been employed for a period of 12 calendar months it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the actual days of work numbered 240 days or more". Act 36 of 1964 has drastically changed the position. section 2(eee) has been repealed and section 25 B(2) now begins with the clause "where a workman is not in continuous service. for a period of one year". These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be 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. So we hold that Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala are in the same position as the other appellants. In the result all the appeals are allowed and the workmen appellants are directed to be reinstated with full back wages. We	 however	 super impose the condition that the salary on reinstatement of the workmen will be the salary which they were drawing when they were retrenched (subject of course to any revision of scales that might have been made in the meanwhile) and the period from the date of retrenchment to the date of reinstatement will not be taken 799 into account for the purpose of reckoning seniority of the workmen among temporary employees. The respondent is free to deal with its employees	 who are temporary	 according to the law. There will be no order regarding costs. PATHAK	 J. I entirely agree with may learned brother Chinnappa Reddy in the order proposed by him. The appeals raise strictly limited questions. The appeals by Usha Kumari and Madhubala involve the question whether they can be regarded as being in continuous service for a period of one year within the meaning of section 25B(2)	 and if so	 to what relief would they be entitled. The remaining appeals require the court to examine whether the appellants should have been awarded reinstatement with back wages instead of the curtailed relief granted by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. That is the entire scope of these appeals. No question arises before us whether the termination of the services of the appellants amounts to "retrenchment" within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Act. The respondent Bank of India has apparently accepted the finding of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court that the termination amounts to retrenchment. It has not preferred any appeal. I mention this only because I should not be taken to have agreed with the interpretation of section 2(oo) rendered in Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala. Proceeding on the footing mentioned above	 my learned brother Chinnappa Reddy has	 I say with respect	 rightly concluded that on the facts and circumstances before us the appellants should be reinstated with full back wages subject to the proviso that the salary on reinstatement will be the salary drawn by the respective appellants on the date of their retrenchment	 qualified by the impact of any revisional scale meanwhile	 and subject to the further proviso that the period intervening between the date of retrenchment and the date of reinstatement will be omitted from account in the determination of the seniority of these appellants among temporary employees. Ordinarily	 a workman who has been retrenched in contravention of the law is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and that principle yields only where the justice of the case in the light of the particular facts indicates the desirability of a different relief. It has not been shown to us on behalf of the respondent why the ordinary rule should not be applied. 800 On the other question decided by my learned brother I have no hesitation in agreeing that having regard to the simultaneous amendments introduced in the by Act No. 36 of 1964 the deletion of section 2(eee) and the substitution of the present section 25B for the original section it is no longer necessary for a workman to show that he has been in employment during a preceding period of twelve calendar months in order to qualify within the terms of section 25B. It is sufficient for the purposes of section 25B(2) (a) (ii) that he has actually worked for not less than 240 days during the preceding period of 12 calendar months. The law declared by this Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. vs Their Workmen does not apply to situations governed by the subsequently substituted section 25B of the Act. With these observations	 J concur with the order proposed by my learned brother. P.B.R. Appeals allowed.

The respondent Bank terminated the services of the appellants on the ground that they could not pass the prescribed tests for their permanent absorption in its service. On reference the Labour Court held that the Bank 's action in terminating their services (except in the case of two workmen) was in violation of section 25F of the and	 therefore	 was invalid and inoperative. The Labour Court	 however	 refused to order their reinstatement with full back wages on the ground that reinstatement would have the effect of equating them with workmen who had qualified for permanent absorption by passing the test; instead it directed payment of compensation of six months ' salary in addition to retrenchment compensation. In Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala it was held by this Court that the discharge of the workman for the reason that she did not pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed was retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) and therefore the requirement of section 25F had to be complied with. The workman in that case was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. The workmen claimed that their case being identical with this case	 they should be reinstated with full back wages. The Bank on the other hand contended that non compliance with the requirements of section 25F did not render the termination of their service void ab initio but made it invalid and inoperative and that the Court had full discretion to direct payment of suitable compensation instead of ordering reinstatement with full back wages. In respect of two of the seven appellants	 however	 it was conceded before the Labour Court that these two employees worked in the Bank for a few days more than 240 days during the preceding 12 months and since they had 790 not been in the Bank 's employment for one year	 there was no violation of section 25F. But this concession was questioned before this Court in appeal and it was contended that there was non compliance with the requirements of section 25F. Allowing the appeals	 ^ HELD: [per Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy	 JJ. Pathak	 J. concurring] The five retrenched workmen should be reinstated with full back wages. When an order terminating the services of a workman is struck down it is as if that order had never been passed and it must ordinarily lead to reinstatement of the workman with full backwages. In cases where it is impossible or wholly inequitable vis a vis the employer and the worker to direct reinstatement with full back wages	 as for instance	 where the industry has closed down or where the industry is in severe financial straits	 for to order reinstatement in such a case would place an impossible burden on the employer or where the workman had secured better or an alternative employment elsewhere and so on	 there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate orders. Occasional hardship may be caused to the employer; but more often than not	 far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workman if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted. [795B E] In the instant case there is no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief of reinstatement with back wages. The apprehension of the Labour Court that reinstatement with full back wages would put these workmen on a par with those who were qualified for permanent absorption by passing the prescribed test and that would create dissatisfaction amongst the latter is unfounded because firstly these workmen can never be on par with the others since reinstatement would not qualify them for permanent absorption but they would continue to be temporary liable to be retrenched. Secondly there is nothing to show that their reinstatement would cause dissatisfaction to anyone nor even that it would place an undue burden on the employer. [795F G] Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala (1980) Vol. II LLJ 72	 applied	 Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs The Presiding Officer	 Labour Court	 Orissa & Ors. ; 	 M/s. Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. vs Industrial Tribunal	 Haryana and Ors. ; 	 M/s. Swadesamitran Limited	 Madras vs Their Workmen ; 156 and State Bank of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money ; @ 166 referred to. To attempt to discern a distinction between "void ab initio" and "invalid and inoperative"	 even if it be possible to discover some razor 's edge distinction would be an unfruitful task because semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of 'bread and butter ' statutes. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief	 the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions. Whatever expression is used the workman and the employer primarily are concerned with the consequence of striking down the order of termination of the services of the workman. [794H] The two other appellants were in much the same position as the five others. The concession made before the Labour Court was apparently based on the decision of this Court in Sur Enamel & Stamping Works (P) Ltd. vs Their 791 Workmen ; which was a case before section 25B was recast by Act 36 of 1964. The amendment Act 36 of 1964 has brought about a change in the law by repealing section 2(eee) (defining continuous service) and adding section 25B(2) which now begins with "where a workman is not in continuous service. . for a period of one year". These changes are designed to provide that a workman who had actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 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. [798F G] Pathak	 J. concurring: The limited question for examination is whether the appellants should have been awarded reinstatement with back wages instead of the curtailed relief granted by the Labour Court. The respondent bank having accepted that the termination of the services of the workmen amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) it is not necessary to invoke the rule laid down by this Court in Santosh Gupta vs State Bank of Patiala for the interpretation of section 2(oo). [799G E] Ordinarily a workman who has been retrenched in contravention of the law is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and that principle yields only where the justice of the case in the light of the particular facts indicates the desirability of a different relief. It has not been shown in this case why the ordinary rule should not be applied. [799 G H] Having regard to the simultaneous amendments introduced in the by Act 36 of 1964 it is no longer necessary for a workman to show that he has been in employment during a preceding period of twelve calendar months in order to qualify within the terms of section 25B. It is sufficient for the purpose of section 25B(2)(a)(ii) that he has actually worked for not less than 240 days during the preceding period of 12 calendar months. [800A C] Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. vs Their Workmen ; 	 622 3	 held inapplicable.