JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner in this writ application, has challenged the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, wherein the reference in relation to termination of the petitioner Has been answered in the negative. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected in an interview conducted by opposite party No.2 for undergoing training as a clerk (general) and the Principal of. I.T.I Puri, recommended the name of the petitioner to undergo the said training. Pursuant :to the recommendation of the Principal as well as on being selected, the petitioner took the training from 21-11-85 to 21-11-86 and during the training period he was getting monthly stipend. 'After completion of the traiping the petitioner requested opposite party No. 2 to allow him to work on casual basis. Though the petitioner was being paid remuneration on signing the payment slips, he was not allowed to sign the Attendance Register and he was being paid wages as N.M.R. worker. The petitioner was engaged as an N.MR. clerk from 1-2-98 and performed duties from 1-2-88 to 30-9-88, i.e. for 243 days without any interruption. However, the petitioner's service was terminated by opposite party No. 2 on 30th September, 1988 on the basis of an oral order without any prior notice and without following the procedure of law as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act', for short).. Thereafter the dispute arose with regard to termination of petitioner's service and a reference was made to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, and the reference having been answered against the petitioner, this writ application has been filed. 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed a counter stating that the petitioner having not completed the required number of working days in a calendar year, there was no occasion for following the procedure laid down in the Act. Moreover, the petitioner had been engaged for a particular work and after completion of the same his service was terminated along with similar other causual employees who had been engaged for the said work. It is further stated in the counter that after completion of the training the petitioner had not been engaged and only in the year 1988 he was engaged as a casual unskilled labour. 4. It is further stated in the counter that after completion of the training the petitioner had not been engaged and only in the year 1988 he was engaged as a casual unskilled labour. 4. The reference made to the Labour Court runs as follows : "Whether the termination of service of Sri Bijay Kumar Sahop by the Executive Engineer, Puri Electrical Division, Puti with effect from 1-10-99 is legal and/or justified ? If not to what relief Sri Sahoo is entitled ?" The Labour Court answered the reference against the petitioner ' on the following findings : (1) The period for which the petitioner was undergoing training is under the provisions of Apprentices Act, 1961 and therefore, such training as apprentice will not attract the provisions of the Act. (2) The claim of the petitioner with regard to his engagement for the period from 22-11-86 to 31-1-88 is not true, as in his evidence he admitted that after completion of the training period he was relieved and subsequently worked under the management with effect from 1-2-88 till 30-9-88. (3) Though the petitioner completed 240 days of working days in between 1-2-88 and 30-9-88, there is no material to: show that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months. Therefore, the case of the petitioner' does not come under the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) and sections 25B and F of the Act. 5. Shri Manoj Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner was working from 1-2-88 till 30-9-88 and had completed 240 working days uninterruptedly and as such having completed the required number of days of employment within a, period of one year is covered u/s 25F of the Act and therefore, without following the procedure as mentioned therein be could not have been retrenched from service. Apart from that, undisputedly the petitioner had worked as a clerk (general) for the period from 21-11-85 to 21-11-86 and therefore, is also covered under the said provision, having put in required number of days of continuous service within the said period of one year. Apart from that, undisputedly the petitioner had worked as a clerk (general) for the period from 21-11-85 to 21-11-86 and therefore, is also covered under the said provision, having put in required number of days of continuous service within the said period of one year. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reason given by opposite parties 1 and 2 that the petitioner had been engaged in the year 1988 for a particular job is neither borne out from the written statement 6ied before the Labour Court nor from the evidence adduced from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore, section 2(oo)(bb) has no application to the facts of the case. 6. So far as the first point is concerned, it is necessary to refer to section 25B of the Act which runs as follows : "25-B. Definition of continuous service--For the purpose of this Chapter,-- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period, if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where as workman is not in continuous service, including service within the meaning pf clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous services 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; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six 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) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case. XX XX XX" Section 25F of the Act runs as follows . "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) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice ; (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 or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette." As is evident from the provision contained in section 25B of the Act it is necessary that a workman should have completed 240 days in one year to come under the definition of 'continuous service'. Only when 3 workman is found to be in continuous service for one year, as provided u/s 25B, the provisions contained in section 25F become applicable and such workman cannot be retrenched by the employer unless he has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon some decisions to support his claim that there was continuous service for one year as defined under-section 25B and therefore, the case of the petitioner conies u/s 25F of the Act. In a decision reported in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon some decisions to support his claim that there was continuous service for one year as defined under-section 25B and therefore, the case of the petitioner conies u/s 25F of the Act. In a decision reported in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, the Apex Court has held that before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry within the meaning of section 25B of the Act, it must be shown first that he was employed for a period not less than twelve calendar months and that during these twelve calendar months he had worked for not less than 240 days, Where the worker was employed only for eleven months, the fact that during such period of eleven months he had worked for more than 240 days, would not entitle him to get the benefit of section 25F,of the Act. In the other decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996 II L.LJ. 820: Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam and others, it has been reiterated that a workman must have been in continuous service for not less than one year, as defined u/s 25B in order to get the benefit of section 25F. In the present case though the petitioner has completed 243 days of continuous service, the same is within the period from 1-2-88 to 30-9-88 and therefore, not covered under one calendar year. In Sur Enamel & Stamping Works (supra), the workman had completed eleven months of service having completed 240 days of employment. In such a case also the Apex Court held that the petitioner therein having not completed the required number of working days within 12 calendar months, cannot ?et the benefit of section 25F. Therefore, the first, point raised by the learned counsel for petitioner fails. 7. In such a case also the Apex Court held that the petitioner therein having not completed the required number of working days within 12 calendar months, cannot ?et the benefit of section 25F. Therefore, the first, point raised by the learned counsel for petitioner fails. 7. So far as the second point is concerned it appears that the claim of the petitioner that after completion of the training on 21-11-86 he had been allowed to work on the pay of an N.M.R. worker and was not allowed to sign the Attendance Register has not been proved by producing any material before the Labour Court, The Labour Court has recorded the finding that except the oral evidence of the workman no document has been proved to show his engagement with effect from 22-11-86 to 31-1-88- It has further held that engagement of the petitioner from 22-11-86 has not been pleaded in the statement of claim and on the other band, he has clearly admitted that after completion of his training period he was relieved and subsequently he worked under the management with effect from 1-2-88 till 30-9-88. I do not find any reason to differ with the said finding and therefore, the second point raised by Shri Misra fails. 8. So far as the third point is concerned the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that for the period from 21-11-85 to 21-11-86 the petitioner had been engaged as an apprentice and u/s 18 of the -Apprentice Act, 1961 every, apprentice undergoing apprenticeship training in a designa-tpd trade in an establishment shall be a trainee and not a worker and the provisions of any law with respect to labour shall not apply to or in relation to such apprentice. Relying on the said provision the learned counsel submits that since the petitioner is not to be treated as a worker during the period of his apprenticeship training, the provisions of the Act cannot be attracted. Relying on the said provision the learned counsel submits that since the petitioner is not to be treated as a worker during the period of his apprenticeship training, the provisions of the Act cannot be attracted. He has relied upon the decisions reported in 1996 LLR 1142 : U. P. Sugar Company Ltd v. Ram Nath Prasad and others : 1996 LLR 1066 : M/s. U, P. State Spinning Mills v. Labour Court 1996 LLR 824 : Achutan v. Babu; and 1995 LLR 1087 : Chittaranjan Das v Durgapote Project Ltd. Allahabad High Court in the decision reported in 1996 LL.R 1142 (supra.) held that the definition of 'workman' under the Act by no stretch of imagination can be said to include the apprentice within the meaning of Apprentices Act, 1961. Appointment of apprentice is governed by the provisions of the said statute under which a obligation is created on the employer to impart training to apprentices. Section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 clearly lays down that the apprentice under the said Act is not a workman and none of the laws applicable to labour would be applied in case of apprentices. In view of the said decisions and the provisions contained in section 18 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, the third contention of the petitioner also fails. 9. Learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 has raised an objection stating that the petitioner had been engaged for a particular work and on completion of the said work, he was disengaged and therefore, his case is squarely covered u/s 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The said contention of the opposite parties has been seriously disputed by the petitioner stating that neither there was any such pleading nor any evidence has been led to that effect. In the written statement filed by opposite parties the following has been pleaded in paragraph 7(a) : "7(a). Thereafter some time during 1988 Shri Sahoo was engaged as a casual unskilled labour during the period from 1-2-88 to 30-9-88. As per the requisition of S. D. O. (E), construction Sub-Division, Puri, some additional N. M. R. workers were engaged under No. II J. E., Sakhigopal against R. E. C. work, Satyabadi and Kanan. Thereafter some time during 1988 Shri Sahoo was engaged as a casual unskilled labour during the period from 1-2-88 to 30-9-88. As per the requisition of S. D. O. (E), construction Sub-Division, Puri, some additional N. M. R. workers were engaged under No. II J. E., Sakhigopal against R. E. C. work, Satyabadi and Kanan. Accordingly Shri Sahoo was one amongst some other N. M. R. workers engaged for R. E. C. work under S. D. O. (E), construction Sub-Division, Puri, and his employment came to an end from 30-9-88 consequent upon completion of that work. He was not engaged as Clerk (G) as claimed by him. He was engaged as unskilled labour with daily wages of Rs. 11-00 per day. No any other N. M. R. worker Junior t,o the 2nd. party has been allowed to continue in his place. There also no such vacancy exists for engagement of either the 2nd. Patty or some one else. So his claim to allow him to continue further does not arise." The said pleading has also been supported by way of evidence through the witness examined on behalf of the opposite parties who has stated that the petitioner was engaged from February to September, 1988 and as the work he was doing was completed he was disengaged along with others engaged like him. In the written statement a specific plea has been taken that the petitioner was one amongst other N. M. R. workers engaged for R. E. C. work under the S. D. O. (Electrical Construction Subdivision, Puri and his employment came to an end from 30-9-88 consequent upon completion of that work. Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act prescribes that retrenchment does not include termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein. In view of the specific stand taken by the opposite parties in their written statement, as stated above, I am of the view that disengagement of the petitioner was consequent upon completion of the work for which he had been engaged and therefore, is not a 'retrenchment' within the definition of section 2(oo) of the Act. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. 10. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. 10. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed