Sujoy Paul, J.

1. Heard.

2. Shri Chaturvedi submits that both the matters are identical and therefore, these matters may be decided on the basis of facts and pleadings mentioned in WP No. 1918/2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award of Labour Court dated 19.12.2014 is bad in law. The Labour Court has erred in directing the reinstatement of the workman with 60% backwages. The stand of the employer before the Labour Court was that the workman was engaged for 89-89 days. Putting it differently, it is contended that workman was given one day's break on completion of every 89 days. Shri Chaturvedi contends that workman has not completed continuous service of 240 days. No other point is pressed by him. In nutshell, he contended that since workman has not completed 240 days' service, Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not attracted.

4. I have heard him at length.

5. The Court below in para 16 of the award opined that exhibit P/2 and P/3 are attendance sheet and salary statement respectively. These documents are for a period between July, 2005 to March, 2008. The Court below gave a finding of fact that during this period, workman has continuously wo