D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tej Ram, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 2 ) INSTANT petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the award dated April 20, 1978 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Agra, the Respondent no. 2 in Adjudication Case No. 203 of 1976 (Central) emanating from a reference to him under section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby it has been held that Sri Tilak raj, an employee of the petitioner, was deprived of his work "without any just and lawful cause or excuse since January 23, 1976 and he should be reinstated with continuity in service and full back wages". ( 3 ) THE question referred to the Labour Court was whether termination of the services of Sri Tilak raj, the Respondent No. 1, with effect from January 23, 1976, was justified and/or illegal ? If not to what benefit and compensation the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Labour Court the petitioner took the stand that the Respondent No. 3 "was absent without leave for a period exceeding 15 days at a stretch with effect from December 12, 1975 hence the employer treated it as abandonment of employment" and "employer did not take any action against the workman but the service of the workman stood terminated by operation of standing Orders which have the force of law". ( 5 ) THE Respondent No. l took the stand that while on duty on December 28, 1975 he sustained injury; that he had to remain on leave from December 29, 1975 to January 19, 1976 on the medical advice received at the Employees State Insurance Dispensary, which fact was duly communicated to the petitioner by the Doctor Incharge of the Employees State Insurance dispensary; that he was declared fit and granted a fitness certificate on January 20, 1976; that alongwith the said certificate he went to the petitioner on January 20, 1976 where he was advised to come after one or two days; and that finally on January 23, 1976 when he reported again he was not taken back to service. ( 6 ) THE theory of abandonment set up by the petitioner has been rejected by the Respondent No. 2. It has been found by him that there was no abandonment by the Respondent No. 1 as he was absent from duty on account of injury sustained by him while on duty on December 29. 1975 at 4 p. M. followed by medical leave. In support of this conclusion the Respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the entries in E. S. I. Forms No. 3 and 16 which were sent by the petitioner itself to the E. S. I. Dispensary notifying the factum of injury sustained by the Respondent No. 1. Nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court which may discredit the evidence in the shape of e. S. I. Forms No. 3 and 16 relied upon by the Respondent No. 2. ( 7 ) OBVIOUSLY, the finding of the Respondent No. 2 that the Respondent No. 1 had not abandoned the employment but was on medical leave is fortified by the material evidence on record, namely, E. S. I. Forms No. 3 and 16. It is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with. ( 8 ) ABANDONMENT connotes giving up, deserting or yielding. It is a condition of letting oneself go of own accord. It has an element of volition and excludes action under compulsion arising out of circumstances beyond control. Abandonment, in reference to the context, would, therefore, mean keeping away voluntarily and without just and lawful cause or excuse. The absence of the respondent No. 1 which was on account of the injury suffered by him while on duty forcing him to go on medical leave cannot, by any stretch of imagination constitute abandonment of his employment. On the contrary, there was just and lawful cause or excuse for the absence, namely, the injury. ( 9 ) THERE being no abandonment of the employment by Respondent No. 1, he could not legally be deprived of the service. The Respondent No. 2 has rightly directed the reinstatement of the respondent No. l with continuity in service and full back wages. The impugned award is, therefore, upheld. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. .