ORDER : 1. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court on April 8, 1992 and the impugned revisional order passed by the Industrial Court on November 26, 1992, are substantially just, reasonable and fair. No case for intervention is made out under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Compounder by the petition with effect from March 19, 1991. The services of respondent No. 1 were orally terminated on December 27, 1991 without complying with the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court recorded a prima facie finding of fact to the effect that respondent No. 1 had put in 240 days continuous service and the impugned termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner failed to produce the Muster Register and other relevant documents at the time of hearing of application of respondent No. 1 for interim relief. The petitioner relied upon appointment orders issued by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 from time to time and contended that such appointment orders were for 29 days in the first instance and respondent No. 1 had not completed continues service of 240 days at the material time. Respondent No. 1 contended before the Labour Court that the said appointment orders providing for artificial gaps did not represent the truth and, as a matter of fact, respondent No. 1 had worked throughout without any break. Respondent No. 1 also contended that respondent No. 1 was marking his attendance in the Muster Register. 3. In view of patent breach of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No. 1 as a Compounder by way of interim relief till the final disposal of the Complaint ULPA NO. 62/92. The Industrial Court dismissed the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner against the said order. The petitioner ought to have produced the Muster Register. The two Court below were entitled to evaluate the evidence produced on behalf of respondent No. 1 and record prima facie findings of fact after taking into consideration the fact of withholding of material documents as stated hereinabove. 4. The petitioner ought to have produced the Muster Register. The two Court below were entitled to evaluate the evidence produced on behalf of respondent No. 1 and record prima facie findings of fact after taking into consideration the fact of withholding of material documents as stated hereinabove. 4. It is most unfortunate that some of the litigants are granting stay of the operation of the orders passed by the Courts below to themselves without obtaining any stay order from the High Court. The impugned revisional order is passed on November 26, 1992. The said order is not still implemented. The Court expresses its displeasure in respect of wrongful conduct of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is dismissed. The petitioners is directed to implement the order passed by the Labour Court on April 8, 1992, within two weeks from today.