P. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner assails the order/award of the Labour Court, Jeypore. Koraput answering the reference made to it by the state Government under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner-workman. ( 2 ) THE short fact of the petitioner's case was that he was working with Orissa Forest development Corporation as a mate, which was subsequently redesignated as Field assistant in its Rayagada Division running under the control of opposite party No. 3. He was appointed on November 10, 1989 and continued upto June 15, 1991, when his services were terminated without assigning any reason, for which an Industrial Dispute was raised before opposite parties 2 and 3. The conciliation Proceeding having failed, on the basis of the report, the State Government referred the dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour court, Jeypore under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act in the following terms: (I) Whether the termination of the services of Sri Gangadhar Labala by way of refusal of employment w. e. f. June 16, 1991 by the management of O. F. D. C. Ltd. is legal and/ or justified. (II) If not, to what relief Sri Labala is entitled to Parties submitted their statements of claim and the written statement. The learned Labour court by its award dated March 29, 1996 answered the reference against the petitioner with the findings that the termination of the services of the petitioner by way of refusal of employment is legal and justified. Hence, the present writ application challenging the order under Annexure 3. ( 3 ) SRI S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the finding of the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days, preceding 12 calendar months from the date of retrenchment is on a misinterpretation and misconception of the provision of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as "i. D. Act") and as such, the award is illegal. It is his submission that both the parties have admitted that the petitioner had worked since January 10, 1989 to June 15, 1991 and as such, period of 12 months preceding the date of termination has to start from June 15, 1990 and so calculated, the petitioner has worked for 273 days and not 192 days as has been held. It is his submission that both the parties have admitted that the petitioner had worked since January 10, 1989 to June 15, 1991 and as such, period of 12 months preceding the date of termination has to start from June 15, 1990 and so calculated, the petitioner has worked for 273 days and not 192 days as has been held. It is further contended that in view of the admission of the opposite party-management that the petitioner was offered retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the I. D. Act, this obviously would mean that the workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days, for which the compensation had been offered. The finding of the learned Labour court that the petitioner has not been able to prove that his juniors are continuing in service is on a factual error inasmuch as the onus is on the management to show that no junior is continuing in service. The findings of fact that the petitioner was working as a seasonal worker and since the work had been completed he is not entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is challenged on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner was engaged as a seasonal worker by the opposite party-management. ( 4 ) SRI R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party- management, however supports the findings of the learned Labour court and submitted that the findings are based on cogent materials on record inasmuch as it has been proved to the hilt that the petitioner was engaged as a seasonal worker for bamboo operation and he had not engaged for one year nor he rendered continuous service for 240 or more days in 12 calendar months preceding his disengagement. The learned Labour Court on receipt of the reference appears to have issued the notice and both the worker as well as the management filed their respective claims and counter claims. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: issues"1. Whether the second party-workman rendered his service in the establishment of the management continuously for a period of 240 days preceding the date of his termination ?2. Whether the management is required to comply the provision of Section 25-F of the i. D. Act before retrenching the second party workman ?3. Whether the second party-workman rendered his service in the establishment of the management continuously for a period of 240 days preceding the date of his termination ?2. Whether the management is required to comply the provision of Section 25-F of the i. D. Act before retrenching the second party workman ?3. Whether the management has followed the principles of "last come, First got" while terminating the services of the workman?4. Whether the termination of service of shri Gangadhar Labala by way of refusal of employment w. e. f. June 16, 1991 by the management of O. F. D. C. Ltd. is legal and/ or justified. ?5. Whether the workman is liable to be reinstated in his former post and he is entitled to the back wages?6. To what other relief if any the workman is entitled?"the claim of the workman was that he was an N. M. R. mate under the first party management from January 10, 1989 till June 16, 1991 on a monthly wage of Rs. 650. 00, whereas the first party management claimed that the workman was engaged in bamboo operation as a seasonal worker on daily wage basis from January 10, 1989 to June 16, 1991 with intermittent break during the off season and the petitioner was disengaged on completion of the coupe work. He has not rendered service in the establishment continuously for a year or for a period of 240 days preceding the date of his termination disengagement. The workman has examined himself as P. W. 1. It is stated that he was appointed as a mate on January 10, 1989 by the managing Director. First he applied to the managing Director to pass orders to join in the rayagada Division. He was appointed against the permanent post, but in the written statement, the petitioner stated that he was engaged on an N. M. R. basis under the first party management from January 10, 1989 to june 16, 1991. In his cross-examination, the petitioner stated that he was engaged by the s. D. F. M. , Rayagada on a monthly wage of Rs. 330. 00. The management adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Labour Court found from Exts. In his cross-examination, the petitioner stated that he was engaged by the s. D. F. M. , Rayagada on a monthly wage of Rs. 330. 00. The management adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Labour Court found from Exts. 1 to 22, the muster rolls maintained by the Division bearing petitioner's signatures that he was engaged on daily wage basis and had been paid wages according to the number of days he worked which varied from month to month. From the evidence, the learned Labour Court found that the claim of the workman that he was appointed as a mate on January 10, 1989 by the Managing Director was falsified. One Kailash Chandra Rout was examined as M. W. 1, who stated to have known the petitioner-workman, who was working under him as a seasonal worker from 1989 to 1991 in the Bamboo Coupe. According to him, the bamboo season was October to June and he worked till June, since the season was over, he was not engaged. The management also produced the muster rolls from October to june as Exts. 15 to 22. From Exts. 15 to 22, the Labour Court found that the workmen were engaged for 192 days within 12 calendar months just preceding his disengagement and as such there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that the workman was engaged for 240 days and as such Section 25-F did not arise. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate contention of the learned counsel as to whether the petitioner-workman has rendered continuous service for a period of not less than 240 days during the preceding 12 months, it is necessary to construe what is continuous service for the purpose of entitlement to the retrenchment benefits. "continuous service" for the purpose of entitlement to the retrenchment benefits is to be considered on the days on which the workman had actually worked under an employer during preceding 12 months calculated backward from the date of retrenchment. Section 25-B (1), speaks of an uninterrupted service, a service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike, which has not been declared or a lock out or cessation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of any workman. But sub-sec. (1) is independent of sub-sec. (2) of Section 25-B of the Act. Sub-sec. But sub-sec. (1) is independent of sub-sec. (2) of Section 25-B of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) of Section 25-B of the Act postulates a situation where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of sub- sec. (1) of Section 25-B and even where he was not in uninterrupted service for a period of one year, he shall still be deemed to be in continuous service under the employer for a period of one year, if, during the period 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, the said workman has actually worked under that employer for not less than 240 days. Under section 25-B (2) (a) (ii) of the Act, if a workman can establish that calculating backwards to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of his retrenchment he had actually worked for a period of 240 days during those 12 months, he would be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period of one year and would satisfy the eligibility qualification contemplated in Section 25-F of the Act. According to the opposite party-management. the petitioner was engaged on N. M. R. basis as a seasonal worker for operation of the bamboo coupe and the bamboo season starts from the month of october and continues till June of the following (sic) year. Undisputedly, the petitioner-workman worked till June 13, 1991 and calculated backwards 12 calendar months. It works out till July 1990 but the season work has been started in October as would be revealed from Exs. 15 to 22, the petitioner had worked for 26 days in October, 26 days in november, no days in December, 26 days in january, 23 days in February, 26 days in march, 26 days in April, 26 days in May and 13 days in June, 1991 and thus, he rendered for a period of 190 days within 12 calendar months, just preceding his disengagement as has been rightly found by the learned Labour Court. In such view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that he had rendered work for more than 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of retrenchment has to be rejected. In such view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that he had rendered work for more than 240 days preceding 12 calendar months from the date of retrenchment has to be rejected. The further contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had worked from january 10, 1989 to June 15, 1991 and as such the preceding 12 months have to be calculated taking into account the period in a month during which he had worked is misconceived. A submission has been made that in view of the admission of the opposite party-management that the petitioner was offered retrenchment compensation under Section 25 of the Industrial disputes Act would go to show that the workman had rendered the necessary service for which compensation has been offered, is also of no avail, since the compensation that was offered was for the previous year 1990 and as such, that does not ensure to the benefits of the petitioner. The witnesses for the management, M. W. 1 in his evidence stated that the petitioner was working under him as a seasonal worker from 1989 to 1991 in the bamboo coupe. According to him, the bamboo season was from October to June and he worked till June, whereafter since the season was over, he was disengaged. The muster roll, exts. 1 to 22 was produced by the management, wherein the petitioner had put his signature as a token of the money received towards wages for the period he had worked. The petitioner has not been able to lead any evidence or produce any documents to the effect that in fact he has worked for more than 240 days within 12 calendar months just preceding his disengagement excepting the bald statement that he had rendered service. ( 6 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the opposite party-management retrenched the petitioner when his junior N. M. R. employees namely prasanna Rout, Khasyana Bisoi, S. K. Gin and r. C. Sahu were still continuing in the work and as such, the management had not followed the principle of last come first go, while terminating his services. The opposite party-management's specific case is that the employees named by the petitioner were senior to the petitioner-workman and there is no such employee named R. C. Sahoo. The opposite party-management's specific case is that the employees named by the petitioner were senior to the petitioner-workman and there is no such employee named R. C. Sahoo. The workman was examined as W. W. 1 who had admitted in his cross-examination that Sri Prasanna Rout and Khasyana Bisoi are senior to him contrary to the statement made in the written statement as well as in the statement before the Labour court. The fact that Sri Gin and Sri Sahoo were juniors to him has not been supported by any evidence of the workman. In the absence of any evidence, the learned Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plea of the petitioner that his juniors were continuing in service has not been established. ( 7 ) IN any view of the matter. we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, calling for interference, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to cost. P. C. NAIK, J: 8. I agree.