A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE Divisional Manager, Orissa Forest development Corporation seeks to impugn the award dated March 10, 1997 passed by the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Koraput, jeypore in I. D. Case No. 59/95. The said industrial dispute was referred to the Labour court by Government in exercise of power conferred upon it under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference runs as follows:"whether the termination of services/refusal of employment of Sri kanista Bisoi, ex employee of Orissa Forest development Corporation Ltd. , Puruna, katak by the management of Divisional manager, OFDC Ltd. (C) Boudh Divn. with effect from December 1, 1992 is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?" ( 2 ) THE case of the workman before the labour Court was that he had been duly appointed as a Watcher in the year 1988 in Badla bamboo Depot by the management. He served without any break till December 1, 1992 when the management without any justifiable reason or following the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act all of a sudden terminated his services. Such termination, according to the workman, was unjust, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. The workman therefore prayed for his reinstatement in service with back wages. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-management contested the case by filing a rejoinder statement. It was stated by the management that the workman had been engaged as aforesaid since December, 1989, but that he was a casual labourer. It was admitted that the workman had been engaged till June, 1992. However, he did not turn up to work thereafter which amounted to abandonment of service and as such there was no scope for following the provisions of the ID. Act. ( 4 ) TO substantiate his case the workman examined himself as WW- 1 and exhibited some documents. The petitioner-management, however, chose not to examine any witness. The Labour Court framed six issues and on the basis of the materials available before it came to the categorical finding that the workman had been engaged by the management for more than 314 days within twelve calendar months preceding the date of his disengagement. The labour Court disbelieved the plea of the management that the workman had abandoned his service, as the management failed to substantiate the same. The labour Court disbelieved the plea of the management that the workman had abandoned his service, as the management failed to substantiate the same. It was held that the management had not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act. On the basis of such finding, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the order of termination/retrenchment was bad in law and directed that the workman should be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The said award is impugned in this case. ( 5 ) MR. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner-management, forcefully submitted that in consonance with Rule 41 of the O. F. C. Service Rules if a workman not on regular employment remains absent from duty without permission for a period of fourteen days continuously he shall be deemed to have abandoned his service under the Corporation and, as such, there was no need to initiate a proceeding and/or follow the provisions of section 25-F of I. D. Act. According to him, the Labour Court has lost sight of the aforesaid rule for which the impugned award suffers from the vice of non-consideration of material facts and is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the workman-opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the Labour Court has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and the impugned award is based on cogent evidence and any submission to the contrary is unfounded. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have scrutinized the evidence and other materials available on record. Admittedly the workman was engaged in the year 1989 and he worked till June, 1992. The controversy is as to whether he abandoned his service or he was not permitted to work with effect from December 1, 1992. The case of the management is that the workman abandoned his service wilfully, but then to substantiate such plea no evidence was adduced by the management. Surprisingly the management did not examine any witness. To constitute 'abandonment of service' there must be total or complete giving up of duties and/or expression of the intention not to serve any further. This being a question of fact, onus lays on the management which took such a plea to prove with cogent evidence that in fact the workman had abandoned his service. To constitute 'abandonment of service' there must be total or complete giving up of duties and/or expression of the intention not to serve any further. This being a question of fact, onus lays on the management which took such a plea to prove with cogent evidence that in fact the workman had abandoned his service. The management thus totally failed to adduce any evidence and/or discharge its onus. On the other hand, it was the consistent case of the workman that he had worked till February 1, 1992 continuously and from the said date he was not allowed to perform his duty. To substantiate his case, the workman not only exhibited the document Exhibit 1, but also examined himself as WW-1. On scrutiny of the evidence and other materials available on record, I find that the Labour Court has not committed any error in arriving at the conclusion that the management failed to prove its plea that the workman in fact had abandoned his service. ( 8 ) IT is admitted by the management that it had not followed the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of I. D. Act. Retrenchment of an employee without following the mandatory pre-conditions of Section 25-F is not only unsustainable but also illegal. The Labour court has thus committed no illegality or irregularity in coming to the conclusion that termination of service of the workman was contrary to the provisions of the I. D. Act. Once the order of termination was found to be illegal, the consequence could be nothing else, but to issue direction to reinstate the workman in service. The direction of the Labour Court for reinstatement of the workman in service thus does not suffer from any illegality. ( 9 ) SO far as the direction for payment of 50% of back wages to the workman is concerned, I find that no evidence has been adduced by the workman to prove that after his termination he was not gainfully employed anywhere else. The workman was engaged as a Class IV employee, In the absence of any evidence that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else, the direction to pay him back wages was not justified. The workman was engaged as a Class IV employee, In the absence of any evidence that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else, the direction to pay him back wages was not justified. Even otherwise, applying the principle of "no work, No pay", i feel that as the workman had not worked for the management during the period in question and he had not proved by cogent evidence that he was not gainfully employed anywhere else during that period, the direction of the Labour court to pay him 50% of back wages is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the writ application is allowed in part. The direction of the Labour court in its award for reinstatement of the workman in service is maintained, but the direction for payment of 50% of back wages to the workman is quashed. ( 11 ) PARTIES to bear their respective costs. .