by the parties concerned. The employee also produced an appointment order dated 29.04.1986, marked as Ex.W2, apart from a certificate with regard to his employment and the termination letter dated 24.10.1991. The Labour Court taking note of the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the employee had been serving the appellant Institute from the year 1986 and without any rhyme or reason and without an enquiry, the employee had been disengaged from service. There is categorical evidence by the employee that he had rendered 240 days of continuous service in a period of 12 calendar months. As per Ex.W4, the employee had put in 255 days of service between 1989 and 1990. The Labour Court had taken note of various exhibits produced by the appellant Management namely, Exs. M3 to M142 and came to the conclusion that the employee had rendered sufficient number of days of work to attract Section 25F of the I.D.Act, 1947 and that the employer had failed to comply with the statutory provisions. The finding of fact is that from May, 1986 till August, 1991, the employee had rendered continuous service and that the employer failed to produce all the vouchers, as could be seen from paragraph No. 7 of the
