days on each occasion. It is also not in dispute that earlier on 15.7.1987 he was given one month's notice for termination of his service, but later it was withdrawn and he was given re-appointment w.e.f. 21.8.1987 to 17.11.1987, the date on which he worked last. Although, it has been pleaded by the petitioners that the workman did not work from 20.8.1987 to 18.10.1987, but no evidence, worth of any credence, was brought by them, rather the arrival report of the workman was accepted on 19.10.1987. However, the evidence on record duly proves that the workman had completed 240 days of service in twelve calendar months preceding the date of his termination. It has not been shown that the work was not available with the petitioners and so the services of workman were terminated. Rather during the hearing of the instant writ petition, a proposal was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to accommodate the workman as a fresh appointee as a Chowkidaar or on an equivalent post, which they have at any station, but subject to the condition that the workman will not claim any back-wages or continuity of service and shall have no claim on previous service. Hence, from the above facts, it is evident that the work still existed with the petitioners but there is no legal reason shown as to why the workman could not be continued thereafter. In The Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Vs. The State of Haryana and others 1995 (4) RSJ 369, the Division Bench of this Court held that giving of notional breaks with the object of preventing a workman from getting the benefit of labour legislation would amount to unfair labour practices and cannot take the benefit of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. The case in hand is one of retrenchment and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would apply. Admittedly, there is non compliance of the mandatory
