In pursuance of the said directions, the Labour Court had to examine evidence in detail. The applicant moved an application for issuance of directions to respondents for production of various records. Since the workman was terminated on 08.05.2001, as per his own case, the muster rolls of Fatehabad centre for April, 1996 to 2001 and gate pass for the Fatehabad centre for the same period were produced as Ex.W-2. The name of the applicant was found mentioned from the year 1996 to the year 2000 as per Ex.W-2 and the gate passes Ex.W-3 to Ex. W-42. However, as per the record, the applicant only worked upto May, 2000 and not thereafter. Thus, as per the evidence on the record, he never worked for 240 days preceding his alleged termination in May, 2001. Once it is the categorical case of the petitioner himself that he worked for 240 days preceding his termination in May, 2001, the Court was to examine that whether the provisions of the Act had been complied with and if he had completed the said period in the preceding 12 months as observed by this Court on 12.02.2009 in view of the provisions of Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Act. The benefit which has been given to him is for the year 2000 which could not have been given by the Labour Court. The definition of continuous
