Judgment S. S. Sudhalkar, J. 1. Respondent No, 2 was in the employment of the petitioner and was appointed as Draftsman/naksha Nivisi on 10.9.90. According to him, he worked upto 31.7.1991 on which date his service was terminated without any notice. His contention is that he has completed 240 days of continuous service. The petitioners contention is that respondent No.2 was appointed on daily wages, for a fixed period on contract basis and, therefore, the case of respondent No.2 falls under Sec.2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and that he had never completed 240 days of continuous service and he was appointed for a fixed period upto 28.12.1990. He was again appointed on 7.1.1991 for a fixed period upto 31.2.1991 and the contract was further renewed w. e. f.4.4.1991 upto 30.4.1991. Thereafter, because of the non-renewal of the contract, his services came to an end. He was again appointed through Employment Exchange from 2.7.1991 to 31.7.1991 and there was wide gap in the fresh appointment and the terms and conditions of fresh appointment were also different and he has been relieved as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. It is contended that Sections 25 (K), 25 (G) and 25 (H) are not attracted. 2. Regarding completion of 240 days, petitioner has stated in the writ petition that respondent No.2 had worked as under :period From To Days 10.9.90 30.9.90 21 days 1.10.90 31.10.90 30 days (1 day absent) 1.11.90 30.11.90 30 days 1.12.90 27.12.90 27 days Again appointed 7.1.91 31.1.91 23 days (2 days absent) 1.2.91 28.2.91 26 days (2 Jays absent) 1.3.91 31.1.91 25 days (3 days absent) Again appointed 4.1.91 30.4.91 27 days 212 days Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that he has worked only for 212 days. 3. In counting this service, the working days of July, 1991 have not been considered. Period from 2.7.1991 to 31.7.1991 i. e. the period of 30 days, which if added to 212 days, will make the total working period to 242 days. Sec.25f contemplates that a workman who has been in continuous service of not less than one year under an employment shall not be retrenched until the requirements mentioned in the section have been carried out. Sec.25f contemplates that a workman who has been in continuous service of not less than one year under an employment shall not be retrenched until the requirements mentioned in the section have been carried out. The phrase "continuous service for not less than one year" has been dealt with in Sec.25b (2) of the Act, which is as under :- "25. Definition of continuous service :- "25. Definition of continuous service :- (2 ). Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (I) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer -a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than :-i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case. " 4 If we consider the period of July, 1991 then considering the fact that the services of workman were terminated on 31.7.1991, counting for the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination, respondent No.2 had worked for more than 240 days. It is not shown as to how the service rendered by respondent No.2 in July, 1991 could be excluded from counting. Even as per this writ petition, respondent No.2 was appointed as a Draftsman on 10.9.90 on daily wages and the appointment w. e. f 2.7.1991 was also of a Draftsman. However, it was through the Employment Exchange, No reason is shown as to why the period of service in the month of July, 1991 has not to be counted. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court wherein it is held that respondent No.2 had completed 240 days of service. It is not in dispute that requirements of retrenchment under Sec.25-F have not been carried out. Therefore, the termination simplicitor by memo dated 31.7.1991 (copy Annexure P/2) cannot be said to be legal. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that it was non-renewal of the contract of service and, therefore, respondent No.2 cannot be protected under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the termination simplicitor by memo dated 31.7.1991 (copy Annexure P/2) cannot be said to be legal. 5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that it was non-renewal of the contract of service and, therefore, respondent No.2 cannot be protected under the provisions of the Act. The appointment letter dated 22.6.1991 is at Annexurep/l. Emphasis has been laid to clause (ii) of para No.2 of the appointment letter in which there is a condition that the appointment is purely temporary and he can be terminated at any time without any notice. Certainly it cannot be said that the appointment was for a particular period and because of the same, the contract itself had terminated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.2 was a daily wager and, therefore, he could not be said to be having right on the post and his dis-engagement cannot be considered as retrenchment. He has relied on the case of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1997 (2) SLR 570. As against this, there is a judgment of State of U. P. and another V/s. Kajindra Singh Butola and another, FLR 2000 (84) 896. In that case, daily wager is also considered as a workman. When a different view has been taken in latter case, we follow the same. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the award of the Labour Court. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Petition dismissed.