Judgment MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated August 7, 1998 (Annexure p-l) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon. 2. The petitioner has averred that respondent No.2 joined the service of petitioner-Haryana Urban Development authority, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "huda") on February 6, 1990 and his services were terminated on April 11, 1991. Respondent No.2-workman issued a demand notice that his services were illegally terminated. Provisions of Sec.25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were not complied with. He has prayed for reinstatement in service. It has been further averred that HUDA does not come under the definition of an industry and respondent No.2-workman had not completed 240 days continuously. 3. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents. Respondent No.2 filed his written statement. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the petition and the annexures attached therewith. 5. As per the award, the management produced Shri Puran Chand as MW-1, who has stated that the workman had worked from february 1990 to April 1991 except for the month of June 1990. Thus, 240 days of continuous service was not rendered by him with HUDA. He has further stated that in the month of June 1990 Raj Kumar son of Ram chander had worked in place of respondent no.2 and that the name of respondent No.2 is raj Kumar son of Mahabir. The workman Raj kumar has appeared as his own witness as ww-1 and testified that he worked with HUDA from February 6, 1990 to April 1991 without any break and thus completed 240 days of continuous service with HUDA. 6. The mistake intentionally or unintentionally made by HUDA authorities is that fathers name of Raj Kumar has been wrongly mentioned as Ram Chander and it has taken advantage of this to show break in service so that 240 days are not complete. The muster roll for the month of June 1990 shows that fathers name of respondent No.2 was recorded as Ram Chander instead of Mahabir. 7. Considering the date given by the huda, the total number of days of the workman comes to 236, but by adding the month of June 1990, it shows that respondent no.2 worked for more than 240 days continuously. 7. Considering the date given by the huda, the total number of days of the workman comes to 236, but by adding the month of June 1990, it shows that respondent no.2 worked for more than 240 days continuously. The petitioner-HUDA illegally terminated the services of respondent No.2 and thus violated the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act. 8. With the above discussion, we uphold the award dated August 7, 1998 passed by the presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and call for no interference. 9. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, thus, dismissed.