Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This petition has been filed against the Labour Court Award dated 23.1.93 passed in Labour Case No. 17/1992, by which the Labour Court, Bikaner came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of respondent- workman vide order dated 9.10.92 was invalid as the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short `the Act) had not been complied with and it was directed to treat the petition in continuous service. (2). The facts of the case, as revealed from the record, are that the respondent-workman though shown in the record as having been appointed as a part-time employee, he was asked to do the work for eight hours and he was appointed on 5.12.89 and continued till 9.10.90 when his services were orally terminated. The State made a reference under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute: whether the termination of the services of the workman on 9.10.90 was valid. The Labour Court, after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the workman was a full-time employee and he had worked for 240 days in a calen- der year and even if he was a part-time employee, he cannot be deprived of the protection under Sec.25-F of the Act and ultimately came to the conclusion that the retrenchment/termination of the services of the workman was illegal as the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have not been complied with. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Award dated 23.11.93, the State has preferred this petition. (3). Heard Shri B.S. Bhati-learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.R. Choudhary-learned counsel for the respondent-workman. (4). Mr. Bhati could not succeed on any point and could not successfully assail the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court as the Labour Court had given a clear-cut arithmetic calculation and reached the conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and his services were terminated unceremoniously without compliance being made of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, though he did not fall in any of the exceptions provided under the Act. However, Mr. However, Mr. Bhati has vehemently argued that the workman is not entitled for any relief whatsoever under the Act as he did not work for atleast one calendar year i.e. twelve months. Admittedly, the workman was employed on 5.12.89 and his ser- vices were terminated on 9.10.90. Thus, Shri Bhati has urged that the period of one year is to be calculated backward from the date of termination, i.e. 9.10.90 and, thus, the workman worked only for a period of ten months and four days and he was not entitled for any relief under the Act. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in: State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Vinay Kumar & Ors. (1), wherein this Court has very heavily relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in: Sur Enemal and Stamping Works Ltd. vs. The Workman (2). In the said case, after interpreting the provisions of Section 25-F and Section 25-B alongwith other provisions of the Act, the Honble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that to get any benefit under the provisions of the Act, it is mandatory that a workman must work atleast for one year continuously and if he has worked less than twelve calendar months even if he has worked for more than 240 days then he would not be entitled for any relief under the Act. (5). Mr. Choudhary has submitted that the judgment in : Sur Enemal and Stamping Works Ltd.s case (supra) is of no application for the reason that just after the delivery of the said judgment, the Act was amended in the year 1964 and the provisions of Section 2(eee) had been deleted from the Act and the provisions of Section 25-B had also been amended. He further submitted that subsequent to the amendment in 1964, the judgment in Sur Enemals case (supra) was never followed by the Supreme Court though it was considered and was found inapplicable because of the amendment in the Act. In Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court (3), the Honble Supreme Court considered it and held that after the deletion of the provisions of Section 2(eee) which defined ``continuous service as uninterrupted and the amendment of Section 25-B, it is not necessary to work for minimum twelve calendar months. In Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court (3), the Honble Supreme Court considered it and held that after the deletion of the provisions of Section 2(eee) which defined ``continuous service as uninterrupted and the amendment of Section 25-B, it is not necessary to work for minimum twelve calendar months. The Court observed as under :- ``The changes brought about by the Act No. 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months, shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year whether or not he has, in fact, being in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of twelve months; it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year. (6). The issue, also, came for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (4) wherein the Honble Apex Court followed the law laid down in Surendra Kumar Verma case (supra) and held that the provisions provided for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered unintgerrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered the service for a period of 240 days during the period of twelve calendar months counting backwards and just proceeding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. This view has consistently and persistently been take in all the subsequent judgments by the Honble Apex Court, e.g., in N. Robert Desuja vs. Executive Engineer (5), Hari Mohan Rastogi vs. Labour Court & Anr. (6); Standard Motors Products of India Ltd. vs. A. Partha Sarthy (7); and the Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. The Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (8). (7). Thus, the submission made by Mr. Bhati is devoid of any merit and cannot be sustained. (6); Standard Motors Products of India Ltd. vs. A. Partha Sarthy (7); and the Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation vs. The Management of American Express International Banking Corporation (8). (7). Thus, the submission made by Mr. Bhati is devoid of any merit and cannot be sustained. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the workman had wor- ked for 240 days in a calendar year, as explained above, the failure to comply with the requirement of Section 25-F, which prescribes a condition precedent for a valid retrenchment renders the order of retrenchment invalid and inoperative and such a termination would not bring a cession of service of the workman and he continues to be in service, (Vide : Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. M. Baraih (9); and G. Govind Raju vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (10). (8). In view of the above, I find no force in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands discharged. The parties shall bear their own costs.