JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge The Management has challenged the award dated 16.06.2009, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Shimla in Ref. No. 28 of 2007. 2. Mr. Trilok Jamwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that since the respondent-workman had not completed 240 days in a calendar year, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also argued that no person junior to the workman was retained. Thus, according to him, there is no violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has drawn the attention of the Court to award dated 16.06.2009. The learned Labour Court has given a specific finding that the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year and the persons junior to him were also retained. These findings are based on correct appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The scope of judicial review to challenge the award is limited and it can only be challenged on the ground if the findings recorded are perverse and not borne out from the evidence led by the parties. 4. Accordingly, in view of the observations/discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.