JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) For the reason stated in the application, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record. 2. IA No. 3592 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. 3. Present petition is preferred assailing the judgment and award dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Hardwar. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on the request of the workman/respondent no. 2, herein, a reference was made to the effect that as to whether termination of the services of respondent No.2 - Budhi Ram Purwal, daily wager Beldar with effect from 20.10.2000 is valid and justified, if not, what relief workman is entitled for? 5. Respondent No. 2 has stated before the Labour Court that he was engaged temporarily on 21.11.1997 to work as Beldar in Temporary Division, Ghansali, P.W.D.; no appointment letter was issued to the workman; he was asked orally not to come on duty on 20.10.2000; his 2 attendance was being taken on the muster roll by the Junior Engineer and he has worked for more than 240 days continuously before discontinuance on 20.10.2000; on the other hand, petitioner/employee has stated that respondent no.2 was allowed to work as daily wager as and when department felt need: respondent no.2 has not worked continuously for the period 240 days before the alleged termination on 20.10.2000; respondent no.2 used to come and work according to his wish as and when work was available in the Department. Further stated that respondent no. 2 himself stop coming to serve as Beldar on daily wages. 6. From the side of the employer/petitioner, copy of the muster roll was place on record. Although, respondent no.2 has worked for few months prior to 11.12.1999, however, thereafter, he himself did not come on work till 20.05.2000, however, again started working as Beldar on daily wages w.e.f. 21.05.2000 and has worked till 20.10.2000. If total days of work are counted from 21.05.2000, when workman again joined duty till 20.10.2000 he has not worked for 240 days. 7. If total days of work are counted from 21.05.2000, when workman again joined duty till 20.10.2000 he has not worked for 240 days. 7. Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:- “[6-N Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman- 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 moth’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; Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service; (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 service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government.]” 8. Bare reading of Section 6-N of the Act would demonstrate that 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 one month’s advance notice in writing is given to the workman indicating the reasons for retrenchment or workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of such notice and workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every calendar year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. 9. Sine-qua-none to attract Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is that workman should have worked continuously for not less than one year. 10. From the Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition, it reveals that although workman has worked till 31.12.1999, however, he did not work as Beldar for five months and again he came to work as Beldar on 21.05.2000. If continuance of service for one year is counted from 21.05.2010, he has not completed 240 days tile 20.10.2000, therefore, Section 6-N of the Act, cannot be pressed in service. 11. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 12. If continuance of service for one year is counted from 21.05.2010, he has not completed 240 days tile 20.10.2000, therefore, Section 6-N of the Act, cannot be pressed in service. 11. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 12. Impugned judgment and award dated 24.11.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Hardwar is quashed. 13. CLMA No. 7713 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.