SINGHVI, J.—The petitioner has challenged the award dated 20.4.91 passed by the learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) whereby the learned Judge has quashed the termination of service of the workman (respondent No. 2) and has directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and cost of Rs. 100. 2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was engaged as a casual employee on daily wages on 2.8.85. He worked for 93 days between 2.8.85 to 12.7.86. He was again engaged on 8.8.86 and he worked for 69 days upto 15.7.87. Thus in one calender year he worked for 93 days and in another calender year he worked for 69 days. 3. An industrial dispute was raised regarding the termination of his service. The workman claimed violation of Section 25-F and the petitioner submitted that since he had not worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination of his service, there was no violation of Section 25-F on account of not giving notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award. Shri Praveen Balwada, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the workman has not been able to establish the fact that he has served them for a period of 240 days in a period of 12 months, preceding the date of termination of his service. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has recorded a finding of his working for 240 days by misreading the pleadings of the petitioner and the evidence produced on his behalf. Shri B.L. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2, has on the other hand argued that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and that does not call for any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence which has come on record before the Industrial Tribunal, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned award dated 20.4.91 is liable to be quashed. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has passed his finding only on the statement of Capt. G.V.R. Murty who appeared as Officer-in-Charge of the petitioner before the Labour Court. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has passed his finding only on the statement of Capt. G.V.R. Murty who appeared as Officer-in-Charge of the petitioner before the Labour Court. In the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal it has specifically been stated that the workman was engaged on 2.8.85 and he worked for 93 days upto 12.7.86. He was again engaged on 8.8.86 and he worked for different periods between 8.8.86 to 15.7.87 (in all 69 days). Before the Industrial Tribunal, muster rolls containing the attendance of the petitioner were produced. These muster rolls show that the petitioner had worked for less than 240 days in a period of 12 months counted from 15.7.87. The learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has not even referred to the muster rolls produced on behalf of the petitioner. Even in his cross- examination, Capt. G.V.R. Murty has merely admitted that in all the workman had worked for 240 days but he had not worked continuously. 5. In the face of the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner there was absolutely no justification for the learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal to have recorded a finding about the working of respondent No.2 for a period of more than 240 days in a period of 12 months. The learned Judge, Industrial Tribunal has ignored a material piece of evidence while recording the finding regarding violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 25-B of the 1947 Act. The award passed by the. learned Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it. 6. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Award dated 20.4.91 is quashed and set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs.