R. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER by Shri Anoop Shrivastava, advocate. Respondents/state by Shri V. P. Nema, G. A. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the award dated April 30, 2005 which is Annexure P/1 to the petition. This award was passed on a reference made by the appropriate Government exercising the powers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute which was referred for its adjudication was that whether the termination of the petitioner's services is legal and proper, if not, then he is entitled to what relief. ( 2 ) BEFORE the Labour Court the parties filed their statement of claim and also adduce the evidence. The Labour Court in its impugned award came to the conclusion that though the petitioner had been in the employment for a period from May. 1994 till july 1995. The employment since was not continuous for a period of 240 days, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Such a conclusion which has been arrived at by the labour Court is challenged. ( 3 ) IT may be seen in the present case that keeping in view Section 25-B of the Industrial disputes Act. 1947 wherein the word ''continuous service" has been defined. According to the said definition, the continuous service means 240 days of employment preceding 12 months to the date of termination. ( 4 ) THE respondents have filed the return and in para 2 of the return they have stated that in the month of August 1994 the employment was for a period of 24 days, September 1994 -23 days, October 1994 - 24 days, November 1994 - 21 days, December 1994 - 25 days, january, 1995 - 17 days, February 1995-21 days, March 1995 - 24 days, April 1995 - 21 days, May 1995 - 25 days, June 1995 - 25 days and July 1995-21 days. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid it is clear that the employee preceding to 12 months to the date of his termination has worked for a period of more than 240 days. It is not requirement of law that a person has to work continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid it is clear that the employee preceding to 12 months to the date of his termination has worked for a period of more than 240 days. It is not requirement of law that a person has to work continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year. The labour Court under wrong assumption of law had arrived at a finding that since the petitioner has not continuously worked for 240 days preceding 12 months of the date of termination has refused the relief. The findings which has been arrived at by the Labour Court are contrary to law and particularly keeping in view the definition of the word 'continuous service' as defined under Section 25-B of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the award passed by the labour Court dated April 30, 2005 Annexure p/1 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement without back wages. This petition is thus allowed in part. .