ORDER B. L. Yadav, J.:- By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing award of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1962 and published on 18-386 (Annex. 1 to the writ petition). 2. The facts of the case are few and simple and they are these. Respondent 2 was appointed on Aug. 28, 1978 as Ring Cleaner in the Co-operative Textile Mill Ltd., Sahakari Nagar, Bulandshahr under the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Textile Mill, and has acquired status of a permanent workman. He was admitted in the Civil Hospital on 10- 11-79 and remained there till 31-1-80. In the meantime the employer has terminated the services of respondent No. 2 from 15-11-79. This was done with a view to escape the liability of his retrenchment. 3. The case of the petitioner, the employer, was that respondent 2 was appointed on 11-1-79 and not on 28-8-78 as alleged by him, asa temporary workman. But on account of heavy power cut in the supply .of electricity to the Textile Mill about 150 workmen were retrenched As the respondent No. 2 was not in continuous service for twelve calendar months his services were terminated with effect from 15-12-79. This was taken to be an illegal retrenchment. The State of U. P. assuming it to be an industrial dispute, made a reference under S. 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court, Ghaziabad. The term of reference was whether the order dated 15-12-79 terminating the services of respondent 2 was proper or not, and if so, to which relief and compensation the respondent 2 was entitled The Labour Court gave its award in favour of respondent 2 and held that retrenchment of respondent 2 was illegal. Consequently, the services of respondent 2 was to be treated as continuous and he was entitled to all the benefits etc. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid award 4. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, appearing for the petitioner employer urged that the Labour Court erred in holding respondent 2 to be in 'continuous service' for a period of one year and to have worked for 240 days. Whereas in fact, respondent 2 did not remain in employment for a period of one year nor he was in continuous service. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, appearing for the petitioner employer urged that the Labour Court erred in holding respondent 2 to be in 'continuous service' for a period of one year and to have worked for 240 days. Whereas in fact, respondent 2 did not remain in employment for a period of one year nor he was in continuous service. It was further urged that the Labour Court has illegally held respondent No. 2 to be a permanent workman and that the retrenchment was illegal. In the alternative it was also urged that even if it is assumed that respondent 2 worked for a period of 240 days in a year but on that basis it cannot be said that he worked for a period of twelve calendar months. According to Sri Chauhan both the conditions must have been satisfied, namely, respondent 2 should have worked for twelve calendar months and he must have worked for not less than 240 days. He placed reliance on Workmen of American Express International Banking Corpn. v. Management of the American Express International Banking Corpn. (1985) 2 Lab Li 539. 5. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is better to refer to the definition of 'continuous service as given in S. 2(g) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which readsasu nder : "2(g) 'Continuous Service' means uninterrupted service, and inculdes 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 lockout or a cessation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, and a workman, who during the 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 of continuous service in the industry." 6. In the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corpn. (1986 Lab IC 98) (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated principles as to how continuous service of 240 days has to be counted. It has been held that even Sundays and other holidays would be included. In the case of Workmen of American Express International Banking Corpn. (1986 Lab IC 98) (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated principles as to how continuous service of 240 days has to be counted. It has been held that even Sundays and other holidays would be included. I am of the view that as provided in the definition clause of 'continuous service, it is clear that, continuous service has to be counted including sickness or authorised leave and accident or strike which is not illegal or a cessation which is not due to any fault on the part of workman. In the instant case, the Labour Court was conscious about the definition clause in counting the service of 240 days. Jonce it has been found that the workman worked for continuous two hundred forty days, it means by fiction of law, he worked for twelve calendar months. U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation, it has to be interpreted in favour of the weak unless the intention of the legislature is clearly otherwise. After considering the entire evidence led by the workman and the employer it has been held that respondent 2 was in continuous service for a period of 240 days. This is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence on record and there is no justification to interfere with the same. 7. There is a corresponding provision under S. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ( for short the Central Act). in Employers in Relation to the Digwadih Colliery v. Their Workmen. AIR 1966 SC 75 . it was held that in case a workman has actually worked for 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months, both the conditionsare fulfilled. It is a sort of fiction that has been created in the provisions of S. 25-B of the (Central) Act. The fiction converts service of 240 days into a period of twelve calendar months. 8. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the retrenchment was legal, suffice it to say that the Labour Court has held that the workman has been in continuous service for one year, in that event unless the conditions precedent for retrenchment as indicated under S. 6- N(Six-N) of the Act and procedure under Rule 42(Forty Two) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules were followed, the retrenchment cannot be made. Obviously, the procedure provided for retrenchment was not followed, hence the retrenchment was illegal and has correctly been set aside under the award. 9. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore the petition appears to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed in limine.