Illegal retrenchment and continuous service: 240 days' actual work suffices, and reinstatement with full back wages is the normal relief.

Non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ordinarily makes retrenchment ineffective and the normal relief is reinstatement with full back wages; departure from that rule is justified only by special circumstances such as closure, impossibility, or inequity. The Court also clarified that, after the 1964 amendment, Section 25B(2) is satisfied when a workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days in the preceding twelve months, even if he has not been in service for a full year. On that basis, the workmen were reinstated with full back wages.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether termination of service in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ordinarily entitles the workman to reinstatement with full back wages; (ii) whether, after the 1964 amendment, a workman must have served for a full year or only must have actually worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months to satisfy Section 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): whether termination of service in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ordinarily entitles the workman to reinstatement with full back wages.

Analysis: Non-compliance with Section 25F was treated as rendering the retrenchment ineffective for the purpose of relief. The Court held that, in labour welfare legislation of this kind, the normal consequence of setting aside an illegal retrenchment is reinstatement with full back wages. Departure from that ordinary rule is justified only where special circumstances make reinstatement impossible or inequitable, such as closure of the industry or other exceptional hardship. No such impediment was shown in these appeals.

Conclusion: Yes. The workmen were held entitled, as a general rule, to reinstatement with full back wages, and no special reason existed to deny that relief here.

Issue (ii): whether, after the 1964 amendment, a workman must have served for a full year or only must have actually worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months to satisfy Section 25B(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The amended Section 25B(2) was read as materially different from the earlier provision. The Court held that the deletion of the old definition of continuous service and the substitution of the present language showed a deliberate legislative change. Under the amended provision, actual work of not less than 240 days during the preceding twelve months is sufficient to deem continuous service for one year, even if the workman was not in service for the entire year.

Conclusion: Actual work of 240 days in the preceding twelve months is sufficient; a full year of actual employment is not required.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the workmen were directed to be reinstated with full back wages, and the Court clarified the scope of relief for illegal retrenchment and the amended test of continuous service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of retrenchment contrary to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reinstatement with full back wages is ordinarily the proper relief unless exceptional facts justify a different order, and under Section 25B(2) a workman qualifies by actually working 240 days in the preceding twelve months without needing a full year of actual employment.

---