ORDER 1. Petitioner by Shri Umesh Gajankush, Advocate. He is heard. This Court on October 30, 2009 has admitted the petition for final hearing, but none appeared on behalf of Respondent, although he is served. 2. By this petition under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned award dated June 22, 2009 passed by the learned Labour Court in Case No. 8/ID/05/Ref. 3. The question which was referred for adjudication to the learned Labour Court reads as under: Vernacular matter omitted 4. The contention of Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that finding recorded by the learned Labour Court is not based after marshalling the evidence properly and without arriving at the finding whether the workman has served continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year or not, and therefore, the question which was referred for the adjudication too has not been properly answered. 5. We have gone through the impugned award passed by learned Labour Court and we find that the evidence led before that Court has not been properly appreciated and marshalled. Further no finding has been arrived at by the learned Labour Court whether the workman has worked continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year or not in order to arrive at a finding that whether the termination of the services of workman is in contravention to Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances, we hereby set aside the impugned award dated June 22, 2009 passed by the learned Labour Court, Dewas in Case No. 8/ID/05/Ref. (Annexure P/4) and remand the matter back to the learned Labour Court to re-decide the matter and to answer the question which was referred for adjudication after proper appreciation and marshalling the evidence. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.