Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 · Chapter VA: Lay-Off and Retrenchment
Section 25B: Definition of continuous service
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was repealed and replaced by the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 from 21 November 2025. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
This section defines continuous service, which decides eligibility for lay-off and retrenchment compensation.
- Service counts as continuous despite breaks for sickness, authorised leave, accident, a legal strike, or a lock-out or stoppage not the workman's fault.
- A workman is treated as having one year's continuous service if they actually worked two hundred and forty days in the preceding twelve months, or one hundred and ninety days below ground in a mine.
- For six months, the figures are one hundred and twenty days, or ninety-five days below ground.
- Days of lay-off, earned leave with full wages, temporary disablement from a work accident, and maternity leave of up to twelve weeks count as days worked.
Example: A worker on a daily-wage contract worked two hundred and forty days in the year before termination. They count as having one year's continuous service.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
For the purposes 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 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 (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 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) 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—
(i) he has been laid-off under an agreement or 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 years;
(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.]
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 25B
- Jeetubha Khansangi Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat
- Milkhi Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
- Tate of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Smt. Sureshwati
- Ongc Employees Mazdoor Sabha v. The Executive Director Basin Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (India) Ltd.
- Haryana State Co-Operative Supply Marketing Federation Limited v. Sanjay
- M/S P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram
- Brijbhushan Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
- Bank of India and Anr . v. Tarun Kr. Biswan and Ors.
- Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Om Pal
- Manager (Now Regional Director), R.B.I. v. Gopinath Sharma and Anr.
- State of M.P. and Ors. v. Arjunlal Rajak
- Branch Manager, M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shri S.C. Pandey
- Administrator Kamala Nehru Memorial Hospital v. Vinod Kumar
- U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey
- Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors.
- Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. S.G. Kotturappa and Anr.
- Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas
- U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh
- The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc and Ors. v. P. Lakshmoji Rao and Ors.
- M/S. U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. v. Ramanuj Yadav and Ors.
- M/S. Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar
- P.G.I. of M.E. and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar Etc.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
- M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
- S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Ors.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
- State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. Nallai Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors.