Judgment 1.This appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 25.07.1997 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appeal arises out of the award of the Labour Court dated 24.04.1993 on a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947) in respect of termination of services of the respondent. 3. The question referred to the Tribunal was whether the workman inspite of being employed for more than 2 years continuously, termination of his services by the Assistant Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department is valid. 4. The facts which were alleged by the workman were that the workman was employed w.e.f. 30.11.1985 and his services were terminated on 29.02.1988. The termination was by way of retrenchment. The complianc of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 was also not made. The workman has contended that he was in continuous service for more than 2 years having been employed on 30.11.1985 and served till 29.02.1988. The retrenchment could not have been effected without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 as on the date of termination, he was in continuous employment in the establishment under the same employer for more than one year. 5. The present employee had contended that since in successive years of service, the incumbent has not actually worked for 240 days, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered in continuous employee for a year or more and therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of Chapter V.A. of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The principal contention of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the workman was not continuously employed for one year or more at any time. According to the employer, in the first year of service. i.e., to say until October, 1986, the workman has worked for 230 days of service and in the succeeding year, he has worked for 137 days. The workman countenanced this contention by pointing out in the first year of service, the working days admitted by the employer were 107 excluding the paid holidays and weekly holidays which were required to be counted while counting the actual days of working. The workman countenanced this contention by pointing out in the first year of service, the working days admitted by the employer were 107 excluding the paid holidays and weekly holidays which were required to be counted while counting the actual days of working. If that were to be considered his actual working days, the working days in the first year of his service comes to 270 days which makes him entitled for the benefit of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. This plea of workman was accepted and there being no contention about non-compliance with provisions of Section 25-F, retrenchment was held to be invalid and award was made. 7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding that inclusion of paid holidays and weekly holidays in computing the actual working days of a workman for the purpose of Section 25-B(2) is settled law and if these days are taken into consideration, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal about continuous service of workman for one year or more does not call for interference. Consequently, the finding recorded by the Tribunal was upheld, and the award was sustained. 8. The same contention has been raised before us. 9. At the outset, we may notice that there has been misconception about the concept of continuous service. Section 25-B defines continuous service and takes into consideration two contingencies. First contingency is that 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 cession of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. 10. The other contingency is that where a workman is not in continuous employment within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer 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 190 days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine and 240 days in any other case. The provisions of Section 25-B(2) can be invoked in any case where the workman is not in continuous service for a period of one year or more. It has no application where the workman is in continuous service for more than 12 months. 11. Admitted case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the services of the workman commenced from 30.11.1985 and were brought to an end on 29.02.1988 i.e., to say that the workman was in continuous service for more than one year. In the present case, the question of continuous service is not to be decided with reference to actual working days in 12 months immediately preceding the date with reference to which calculation is made. No foundation was laid for the workman not falling within Clause (1) of Section 25-B. We are of the opinion that the workman was in continuous service for one year or more as on the date, termination of his services took place and he was entitled to statutory protection of the legislative enactment. That being so, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal and affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Section 25-f before retrenchment could be effected and same having not been complied with, his retrenchment was invalid. That takes us to the part of the relief that has been granted to the respondent workman. Ordinary relief which is granted is reinstatement with back wages and the same has been granted by the learned Tribunal. However, it is informed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since long time has elapsed and the workman has taken another job, reinstatement would not be appropriate relief and workman would be satisfied if appropriate compensation is awarded. This suggestion appears to be just in the circumstances. 12. In these circumstances, the relief granted by the award of the Tribunal is modified by awarding compensation to be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. Because of the changed circumstances existing at the time, we deem it just and proper to award 75,000/-as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. If the amount is not paid within a period of 3 months, it shall carry interest @ 6% w.e.f the date of order until payment. No order as to costs.