JUDGMENT 1. - Since common question of law is involved in all these 58 (fifty eight) writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judjement. The petitions are directed against an order of the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for brevity R.S.R.T.C. or Corporation here in after) dated 31-5-1988 by which the petitioner's services were terminated with forthwith effect. 2. There is not much controversy between the parties in respect of the facts involved. Barring a few of the petitioners, all of them were appointed as Conductors in R.S.R.T.C. in 1987 as is shown in the impugned order Annexure-1 filed in D B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3071/88 Shambhu Dayal v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors. All of them had put in more than 240 days' service during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment i.e. to say 31-5-1988. At the time of retrenchment one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice and compensation as detailed out in the impugned order were paid to them. Numerous grounds have been taken in the petitions to show that the impugned order of retrenchment is illegal and void. One of these grounds is that the compensation paid to them was not calculated its accordance with the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Dispute's Act, 1947 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Act'). It was stated that the compensation was computed making the date of their regular appointment as the basis for it. The petitioners had been in service even before their regular appointments when they were recruited on daily wages basis. The period during which they remained employed as Conductors in the Corporation on daily wage basis has not been taken into account in computing the compensation. It was also stated that the compensation and. one month's wages were not paid to the petitioners on 31-3-1988 when they were retrenched. These amounts were paid later on. Thus the retrenchment is in contravention and violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. The retrenchment is, therefore, illegal, void and inoperative. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that they should be reinstated with full back wages. 3. The petitions were contested tooth and nail by the respondent. In the returns filed by them, the facts alleged in the petitions were not disputed or traversed. The retrenchment is, therefore, illegal, void and inoperative. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that they should be reinstated with full back wages. 3. The petitions were contested tooth and nail by the respondent. In the returns filed by them, the facts alleged in the petitions were not disputed or traversed. What is contended is that the condensation for the period prior to the regular appointment of the petitioners when they worked on daily wages basis is not payable to the workmen. That period was rightly excluded while computing the compensation under Section 25F(b) of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.R.L. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners addressed us also on the ground that the case is covered by chapter V.B of the Act as the Corporation is a factory and the compliance of the provisions mentioned in the aforesaid chapter were not complied with. We need how ever, decide that question in these petitions because the petitions can be conveniently disposed of taking it to be a case under chapter V-A of the Act. We may point out that the provisions of Section 25B occurring chapter V-A have been made applicable in respect of the industrial establishment to which the provisions of chapter V-B apply. If the workman has put more than 240 days service as is provided in Section 25B(ii) his retrenchment envisaged in Section 25F have been complied with. In the instant case, as will be seen lateron, the impugned order of retrenchment is in violation of the provisions of Sections 25F of the Act. We therefore, refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion whether the respondent-Corporation should or should not be taken a factory for invoking the provisions of chapter V-B of the Act. 6. Very often cases are coming to this court challenging the retrenchment of the workmen by the employer. We may therefore add a few words about the concept of retrenchment and the way in which it should work. 7. An employer cannot be expected to carry the economic dead weight of surplusage of labour. It is why the right of retrenchment has been granted to the employer. At the same time when the workmen are discharged they are thrown out of employment without any fault on their part. 7. An employer cannot be expected to carry the economic dead weight of surplusage of labour. It is why the right of retrenchment has been granted to the employer. At the same time when the workmen are discharged they are thrown out of employment without any fault on their part. The legislature, therefore, thought it fit and proper to introduce some provisions for the help and rescue of the workmen. The enaction of Section 25F in the Act is an attempt in that direction. The provisions of Section 25F are thus based on the grounds of human public policy. 8. The retrenchment if the case is covered by the provisions of Section 25B of the Act can be made only after complying with the conditions mentioned in Section 25F of the Act and the other conditions mentioned in the following sections. A dichotomy of Section 25F of the Act makes the following conditions precedent for a valid retrenchment (1) One month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu of such notice; (2) Payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days, average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part there of in excess of six months; and (3) Notice to the appropriate Government in the prescribed manner. 9. The payment of the wages and compensation must be simultaneously made with the retrenchment. The retrenchment and payment should appear to be the parts of a single transaction. The offer or tender of the wages and compensation at the time of retrenchment will be sufficient. How ever, payment of wages and compensation made subsequent to the retrenchment is not valid and will vitiate the retrenchment because the retrenchment and payment will not then form part of a single transaction. 10. In the instant case, the contention of the workmen is that the compensation was not paid to them when they were retrenched on 31-5-1988 by the impugned order of the same date. The compensation was paid to them after three or four days. The respondents have not mentioned in the return as to when the compensation was actually paid to the petitioners. We are, therefore, unable to say that the retrenchment and the payment of compensation formed part of a single transaction. The retrenchment of the workmen stands vitiated on this ground alone. 11. The respondents have not mentioned in the return as to when the compensation was actually paid to the petitioners. We are, therefore, unable to say that the retrenchment and the payment of compensation formed part of a single transaction. The retrenchment of the workmen stands vitiated on this ground alone. 11. The second ground taken is that compensation for the period during which the petitioners remained employed as Conductors on daily wages basis was not paid to them by the R.S.R.T.C. It was argued that this again vitiates the impugned order of retrenchment. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Section 25F(b) of the Act. The contention is not ineffective. It has considerable force. 12. It would be useful to read Sub-section (b) which runs as under. "25-F. 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)......... (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 continuous service" (a) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c)........." 13. Section 25B provides the definition of continuous service. Subsection (2) of it speaks as to how "continuous service is to be reckoned for a period of one year or six months". Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 25B lays down that if a workman has actually worked under the employer for not less than 120 days, he will be deemed to be in continuous service during a period of six calendar months. 14. Now under Clause (b) of Section 25F, the workmen must be paid retrenchment compensation equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part there of in excess of six months. When the provisions of Section 25B(2)(b), and 25F(b) of the Act are read together, the inevitable consequence would be that compensation must also be paid for continuous service in excess of six months. If the workmen has put more than 120 days service during the period of six calendar months, he should be paid the compensation for that period also. 15. If the workmen has put more than 120 days service during the period of six calendar months, he should be paid the compensation for that period also. 15. Turning to the case in hand, the petitioners were admittedly in the employment of the respondent-Corporation even before their regular appointment were made in 1987 or in 1986. They were then employed as Conductors on daily wages basis For the purpose of attracting the provisions of Section 25F, the period during which the petitioners worked on daily wages basis must also be taken into account for assessing the compensation. The provisions of Section 25F do not make any distinction between the workmen employed on daily wages basis and workmen employed on monthly wages. 16. The grievance of the petitioners is that the period during which they remained employed as Conductors on daily wages basis has not been taken into account for computing the compensation. They had put more than six months continuous service as Conductors on daily wages basis as defined in Section 25B of the Act and they were, therefore, entitled to compensation for that period also. The grievance has considerable force. Since the petitioner's period during which they remained employed as conductors in the Corporation has not been taken into account for payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act, their retrenchment stands vitiated on this ground also. 17. In the result, we allow the write petitions. The impugned order dated 31-5-1988 issued by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur so far it relates to the retrenchment of the petitioners is set aside. The petitioners will be reinstated with full back wages. 18. No order as to costs.Petitions allowed. *******