JUDGMENT : 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 05/04/2019 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3886/2018. 3. The Miscellaneous Petition was directed against the award dated 22/03/2018 passed by Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in reference case No. 39A/ID Act/2016 (Ref). 4. The Labour court was in seisin with the industrial dispute as to whether the termination of the respondent-petitioner w.e.f. 31/05/2016 was just and proper and if not, what relief he is entitled for. After dwelling on rival contention on a finding that the respondent-workman having rendered 272 days of service and since the stipulations contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not adhered to, found termination as illegal retrenchment. Consequently, directed for reinstatement of respondent-workman without backwages. 5. Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Labour Court and the fact that the workman had established that he has worked for more than 240 days and his termination was not in consonance with the order of appointment, upheld the order passed by the Labour Court, holding:- "10. Thus it is clear that the respondent was appointed on the post of Lab Attendant for a period of less than 240 days. It is not the case of the petitioners that the services of the respondent were discontinued prior to completion of 240 days. On the contrary, it has come on record that the respondent was allowed to work beyond the period of 240 days, therefore, it is not a case of termination of the services of the respondent, as a result of term of contract of employment but he was allowed to work beyond the period mentioned in the appointment order. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court did not commit any mistake by holding that the termination of the services of the respondent amounts to retrenchment. No other argument has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioners." 6. 11. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Labour Court did not commit any mistake by holding that the termination of the services of the respondent amounts to retrenchment. No other argument has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioners." 6. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge erred in misconstruing the facts on record; however, when called upon to establish as to whether the termination of service of respondent-workman was because of the expiry of the term for which he was appointed by order No. 134/W/2015 Jaura, dated 16/07/2015, learned counsel for the appellant miserably fails to establish the same. 7. To wit with, clause 1 of the said order categorically stated:- 8. Thus, unless it was established by the appellant that services of the respondent-workman was terminated before completion of 240 days, the outcome of dispute raised by the respondent would have been different. Instead, it is observed from the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent-workman was allowed to continue even after completion of 240 days for a period of 272 days. Section 25F of the Act of 1947 envisages: - "25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- 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 month'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; (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 continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette." 9. The expression "continuous service" has been defined in Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is in the following terms - "25-B. Definition of continuous service. - For the purpose of this chapter. The expression "continuous service" has been defined in Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is in the following terms - "25-B. Definition of continuous service. - For the purpose of this chapter. - (1) a 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 cessaion of, work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) Where as workman is not in continuous service 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. (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calender months proceeding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than. (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days in any other case. Explanation .--For the purposes of Clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which. Explanation .--For the purposes of Clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which. (i) he has been laid off under an agreement as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment; (ii) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous year; (iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; and (iv) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks." 10. Thus, for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference of 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, is said to be in 'continuous service. Therefore, it is not the calendar year but it is twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, is the criteria. The findings arrived at by Labour Court that respondent-workman has worked for 272 days when tested on the touchstone of provisions contained under Section 25B of 1947 Act cannot be faulted with. The contentions made on behalf of appellant therefore, fails. 11. Having thus considered, we do not perceive any error in the order passed by learned Single Judge as would warrant any indulgence. 12. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.