JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge.-The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the respondent-department in the year 1996. His precise case is that the respondents have not permitted him to complete 240 days in the year 2001. The case of the respondent-department is that the petitioner was not disengaged for 12-15 days every month and it could be due to his own absence. 2. It is evident from reply filed by the respondents that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days each year with effect from 1996 till 2000. The petitioner had completed 219½ days in the year 2001. The plea raised by the respondent-department that the petitioner might have abandoned his job for few days every month cannot be accepted. The plea of abandonment is required to be proved like any other fact. A person belonging to lowest strata of the society cannot afford the luxury to remain absent. It cannot be presumed that the petitioner could remain absent knowing fully well the consequences. Rather, the respondents have not permitted him to complete 240 days in the year 2001 by giving him artificial breaks of few days every month. The petitioner has also given the details of days he was not permitted to work in the year 2002 as well. There is a pattern as per the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the reply of the respondent-department reflecting that the respondents were bent upon not to permit the petitioner to complete 240 days every year. The completion of 240 days every twelve calendar months is important for the purpose of getting benefits under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as to seek regularization after putting in requisite number of years. 3. In view of the observations made above, the writ petition is allowed. The artificial breaks given to the petitioner in the year 2001 are condoned. The petitioner shall be deemed to have completed 240 days for all intents and purposes in the year 2001. No costs.