Retrenchment under industrial law includes employer-initiated termination unless a statutory exception applies; 240 days' service triggers protection.

Termination by an employer is treated as retrenchment under section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act unless it falls within a statutory exception such as disciplinary punishment, voluntary retirement, superannuation, or continued ill-health. On the accepted facts, the workman was not shown to be a probationer at termination, so the cessation of service was retrenchment. Section 25B deems continuous service where the workman has actually worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months, and that threshold was satisfied here. Because the mandatory requirements of section 25F were not complied with, the retrenchment was legally ineffective and consequential service benefits followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether termination of service of a workman on the expiry of the asserted probationary or temporary arrangement amounted to retrenchment within section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the workman satisfied the eligibility requirement of continuous service so as to attract section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and what relief followed from non-compliance.

Issue (i): Whether termination of service of a workman on the expiry of the asserted probationary or temporary arrangement amounted to retrenchment within section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: Termination by the employer for any reason whatsoever falls within the statutory definition of retrenchment unless it is covered by an express exception. The workman's termination was not shown to be by way of disciplinary punishment, voluntary retirement, superannuation, or continued ill-health. On the facts accepted by the employer, the workman was not a probationer on the date of termination and the service had ended by an act of the employer.

Conclusion: The termination constituted retrenchment and not an excluded category.

Issue (ii): Whether the workman satisfied the eligibility requirement of continuous service so as to attract section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and what relief followed from non-compliance.

Analysis: Section 25B creates a deeming rule for continuous service. Even where uninterrupted service in fact is absent, a workman is deemed to be in continuous service for one year if, in the twelve months preceding the date of retrenchment, he has actually worked for the prescribed minimum of 240 days in an ordinary case. The workman had worked from 8 December 1973 to 19 October 1974 and had completed the necessary 240 days. Since the mandatory conditions for valid retrenchment under section 25F were not complied with, the retrenchment was legally ineffective.

Conclusion: The workman satisfied the statutory threshold, non-compliance with section 25F rendered the termination ab initio void, and he was entitled to continue in service with consequential benefits.

Final Conclusion: The award of the Labour Court was set aside, the termination was held ineffective in law, and the workman was entitled to full consequential relief, with the matter remitted only for passing an appropriate award in accordance with the findings.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of retrenchment, section 2(oo) extends to every termination by the employer save the statutory exceptions, and section 25B deems a workman to be in continuous service for one year if he has actually worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months, making compliance with section 25F mandatory for a valid retrenchment.

---