JUDGMENT : Toom Meenakumari, J.—This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D. No 26S of 1985 and quash his award, dated October 27, 1989. 2. When the case came up for hearing, Sri T.S. Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the Labour Court was not right in observing that the second respondent workmen have worked for more than 240 days, that there was no basis for the above observation of the Labour Court, and that it was not supported by any material. 3. However, a reading of the award passed by the Labour Court shows that the petitioner-management has not proved their contentions satisfactorily by producing the documents before the Labour Court. As there was no evidence to show that the workmen have worked for less than 240 days, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days. The other finding by the Labour Court is that the petitioner-management has not followed the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Basing on the above and also relying upon number of decisions, the Labour Court has given the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. In view of the above, it can be said that the Labour Court has passed a reasonable order and I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Labour Court. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed.