EMPJ,OYERS IN RELATION TO DIGW ADIB COLLIERY v. THEIR WORKMEN

The definit'.ons in s. 2 of the Act do not apply if there is any· the question is thing repugnant in the subject or context and whether the definition of "continuous service" can at all apply in considering s. 25F when what is incant by the expression "one year of continuous service" in s. 25F is, by s. 25B specially stated. If s. 25B had not been enacted the contention of the Employers would have been unanswerable for the words of s. 25F would then have plainly meant that the service should be for a period of 12 months without interruptions other than those stated in s. 2(eee) itself. But s. 25B says that for the purpose of s. 25F a workman who, in a period of twelve calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year of cQn- tinuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of twelve calendar months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted. .Therefore, though s.

25F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, both conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months. It is not necess"ry to read the definition of continuous service into s. 25B because the fiction converts service of 2@ days in a period of twelve calendar mon.ths into continuous service for one complete year. Mr. B. Sen drew our attention Indul; trial Disputes last December. By <Amendment) Act 1964 which was passed s. 2(iii) of the amending Act of 1964 clause (eee) of the second sec tion of the principal Act was omitted and bys. 13, for s. 25B in the princ; pal Act the following was substituted: "25B. For the purposes of this Chapter,- (!) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in µninterrupted service, including service which may be intermptei on account of sickness or authorized leave or an acci- dent or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service· within the meaning of clause (!) for a period of one year 452 SUl'llEME COURT REPORTS tl965j 3 3.C,It. , he shall be deemed o be in continuous A service under an employer- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not Jess than- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground mine; and in a (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; " The Explanation to s.

25B is the same, mutatis mutandis as before. Mr. Sen contended that the change in the Jaw brought out his con- tention. We do not agree. The amended s. 25B only consolidates the previous, sections 25B and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters which are not relevant to the present purpose, but the purport of the new provisions is not different. In fact the amendment of s. 25F of the principal Act by substituting in cl. (bi the words "for every completed year of continuous service" for the words "for every completed year of service" now removes a dis- cordance between the unamended section 25B and the unamended cl. (b) of s. 25B. Neither before these several changes nor after is uninterrupted service necessary if the total service is 240 days in a period of calendar months. The only change in the new Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made. The last amendment now removes a vagueness which. existed in the unamended s. 25B. We accordingly hoH that the decision under appeal is correct. · rhe appeal fails' and is dismissed. Appeal dismis, sed. · B c D E F G