DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. This petition arises out of the following facts. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner-Bank. He worked with the petitioner-Bank from 12th January, 1982 to 30th June, 1982. His services were brought to an end by issuing a letter, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P/3. This termination was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court came to the conslusion that the workman had in fact worked from 12th January, 1982 to 30th January, 1982 and the persons junior to him were retained in service. On the basis of the above, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to reinstatement and also backwages even though it is not mentioned in the order it appears that the provisions of Section 25-F were made applicable. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is right in his submission that the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') would not be attracted to the facts of this case because the workman had not completed 240 days of continuous service in one calendar year. The fact remain the workman was retrenched in violation of Section 25-G of the Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court that junior persons have been retained in service is not be examined again in writ jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IN view of the above finding recorded by the Labour Court, the conclusion is inescapable that the workman's services were brought to an end in violation of Section 25-G of the Act. Therefore, he would be entitled to reinstatement but he would not be entitled to any retrenchment compensation. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on a decision given by the Kerala High Court reported as Prabhakaran and others v. General Manager K. S. R T. and another, 1981 (42) Factories and labour Report 222. In para 2 of the judgment it was categorical held that the termination brought about by any manner would fall within the definition of the term 'rentrenchment'. In para 2 of the judgment it was categorical held that the termination brought about by any manner would fall within the definition of the term 'rentrenchment'. This reads as under :"the contention put forward by the petitioners that the termination of their service would constitute retrenchment notwithstanding the fact that they are temporary employees appointed only for the duration of the time specified in orders of appointment has to be upheld in view of the recent pronouncement of the Supreme court in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, AIR 1980 SC 1219 , laying down that the expression 'retrenchment' must include every termination of the service of a workman by an act of employer irrespective of the nature of the reason for such termination. Hence we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation that the proposed termination of the service of the petitioners will not constitute retrenchment under the Act. "ultimately the decision given by the Kerala High Court In para 6 it as under :"in the result, these writ petitions are allowed and there will be a direction to the 1st respondent-Corporation not to terminate the service of the writ petitioners except in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 25-G of the Act. " ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has also relied upon a decision in the case of Workmen of Subong Tea Estate, represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union v. Out-going Management of Subong tea Estate and another, AIR 1967 SC 420 . Again in this case it was observed that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act would render the retrenchment as bad and the workmen would be entitled to the relief of reinstatement. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, no fault can be found so far as the relief of reinstatement so grant of to the respondent No. 1 but as the case does not fall within the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the workman is not entitled to backwages. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed accordingly .