JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. Both the writ petitions are against the same award passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.2 of 2006 dated 12.10.2010; W.P.(C) No.12232 of 2011 is by the workman while W.P.(C) No.6311 of 2011 is by the management and as such both the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. 2. In the award impugned the following reference has been made: “Whether the action of the Dean Faculty of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Orissa University of Agriculture Technology, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty, workman w.e.f. 1.4.1997 is legal or justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?” and the same has been answered by way of the following direction: “That the action of the Dean faculty of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Orissa University of Agriculture Technology, Bhubaneswar in terminating the service of Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty, workman with effect from 1.4.97 is illegal and unjustified. The workman Sri Mohanty is entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/- (rupees forty thousand) only as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. The management is directed to implement this award within a period of two months from the date of its publication in the official gazette failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% (nine percent) per annum till its realization.” The workman has challenged the award on the ground that the Labour Court even after coming into conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as such an order the reinstatement ought to have been passed apart from order of compensation but the Labour Court has only passed order of compensation which is not proper and justified. 3. The management has challenged the award on the ground that the Labour Court has wrongly came to conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act since no document has been produced to prove that the workman has performed service continuously for a period of 240 days. 3. The management has challenged the award on the ground that the Labour Court has wrongly came to conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act since no document has been produced to prove that the workman has performed service continuously for a period of 240 days. In the light of these rival submissions, we have, after appreciating the same and after going through the award, found that the Labour Court in order to come to conclusion has formulated the following issues: (i) Whether the action of the Dean Faculty of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry, Orissa University of Agriculture Technology, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Sanjeeb Kumar Mohanty, workman with effect from 1.4.1997 is legal or justified? (ii) If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? 4. In order to answer these issues, the Labour Court has relied upon the muster roll-cum-wage slip (Ext.A) showing name of the workman for the period from 1.9.91 to 31.3.92 of his work in different dates. Ext.C is the Xerox copy of the consolidated pay order which discloses that the workman was ordered to work for a period of 89 days and was reappointed with one day gap in each appointment order. Ext.D is the Xerox copy of the pay order for the period from 21.1.97 to 31.3.97. Ext.C is the order No.5160 dated 20.12.1996 which discloses about the appointment of the workman as Animal Attendant for a period from 26.3.1996 to 23.5.1996 with break on 24.5.96, from 25.5.96 to 22.7.96 with break on 23.7.96, from 24.7.96 to 20.9.96 with break on 21.9.96 and 22.9.96(holiday), from 23.9.96 to 20.11.96 with break on 21.11.96 and from 22.11.96 to 19.1.97. Ext.D is the office order No. 3808 dated 25.10.97 which discloses about engagement of the workman on consolidated pay of Rs.700/- per month from 21.1.97 to 3.3.97 as K.Pradhan joined as Animal Attendant in view of the office order no.5160 dated 20.12.96. The Labour Court after taking into consideration of Exts. A, C and D has reached to the conclusion that the workman has completed more than 240 days to working in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of his termination i.e. 1.4.97. We have gone through the exhibits. The Labour Court after taking into consideration of Exts. A, C and D has reached to the conclusion that the workman has completed more than 240 days to working in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of his termination i.e. 1.4.97. We have gone through the exhibits. As has been discussed by the Labour Court at paragraph-8 of the award and after its scrutiny found that the workman has performed duty from 26.3.96 till l3.3.97 with break of one day on interval as would be evident from Ext.C and as such the period comes to 240 days, however with break of one day but that break cannot be said to be embargo of not attracting section 25-F in view of the definition of continuous service as per the provision made under Section 25B(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is reproduced below: “a workman shall be paid 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 authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lockout or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.” After taking into consideration the provisions of section 25B(1) since interruption will said to be not bar of not attracting Section 25-F, hence we have also come to conclusion that there is violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. There is no dispute about the fact that provision of section 25-F is mandatorily to be followed, in this respect reference may be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of The State of Bombay and others -vs- The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others reported in AIR 1960 SC 610 and Pramod Jhar and others -vs- State of Bihar and others reported in (2003)4 SCC 619 . Thus there is not dispute about the fact that before retrenchment provisions of section 25-F is to be followed. 5. Thus there is not dispute about the fact that before retrenchment provisions of section 25-F is to be followed. 5. So far as grievance of the workman who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12232 of 2011 that the workman ought to have been reinstated in service but the same is not accepted to this Court for the reason that in case of violation of the provisions of section 25-F, order of reinstatement can be passed in exceptional cases and the normal rule is to award compensation in place of reinstatement, reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of, State of M.P. and others -vs- Lalit Kumar Verma reported in (2007)1 SCC 575, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation -vs- M.C. Joshi reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353 , Mahaboob Deepak -vs- Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and another reported in (2008)1 SCC 575 , Sita Ram and others -vs- Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute reported in (2008) 5 SCC 75 , Ghaziabad Development Authority and another -vs- Ashok Kumar and another reported in (2008)4 SCC 261 and Jagbir Singh -v- Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another reported in (2009)15 SCC 327 . In view of such proposition, plea of the workman that he ought to have been provided with reinstatement is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, prayer made by the workman in W.P.(C) No.12232 of 2011 is hereby rejected. 6. So far as contention of the management, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6311 of 2011, since it has been discussed by us that the provision of Section 25-F is mandatorily to be followed and in case of not following the statutory provision, retrenchment compensation is to be paid and taking into consideration this statutory provision the Labour Court has passed the award of compensation of Rs.40,000/-, hence we decline to interfere with the award. 7. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed.