JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner has challenged, by way of this petition, award dated 19.7.2011 made by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala rendered in reference No. 149/2007. 2. Essential facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘workman’ for convenience sake) was engaged as Beldar on 1.9.1983. He worked upto 24.2.1992. He was re-engaged on 25.10.1994. According to the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’ for convenience sake), workman abandoned the job in the year 1995. The workman approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. (M) No. 325/1994. In sequel to the orders passed by the Tribunal, he was re-engaged on 7.2.1996. He was again retrenched on 24.11.1996. Thereafter, petitioner has raised the industrial dispute and after the receipt of the failure report, the following reference was made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala: “Whether the termination of services of Sh. Paras Ram son of Sh. Behandu Ram workman by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, H.P.S.E.B., Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 25.11.1996 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereas junior to him were retained by the employer is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. The reference was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala on 19.7.2011. 4. Mr. G.R. Palsara has vehemently argued that the employer has not followed the provisions of section 25 (F) and (G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 while retrenching his client. He further contended that the workman has never abandoned his job and was always ready and willing to work with the employer. 5. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo has supported the award dated 19.7.2011. 6. The workman, as noticed above, was engaged in different spells. He was engaged on 1.9.1983. He was retrenched and on the basis of the orders passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, he was re-engaged on 7.2.1996. Case of the employer is that the workman himself has abandoned the job. Employer has placed on record muster rolls Ex.RW-1/E and Ex.RW-1/A. According to the employer, the workman was also served with a notice dated 5.4.1997 (mark ‘Y’). Employer has not placed on record the copy of muster rolls with effect from 25.11.1996 to 24.12.1996. Case of the employer is that the workman himself has abandoned the job. Employer has placed on record muster rolls Ex.RW-1/E and Ex.RW-1/A. According to the employer, the workman was also served with a notice dated 5.4.1997 (mark ‘Y’). Employer has not placed on record the copy of muster rolls with effect from 25.11.1996 to 24.12.1996. Copy of notice sent to the workman dated 5.4.1997 was also received back undelivered. In view of this, workman has never been informed by the employer to rejoin his duties. Since the employer has not placed on record muster rolls with effect from 25.11.1996 to 24.12.1996, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the employer. Since the muster rolls with effect 25.11.1996 to 24.12.1996 have not been placed on record, it can safely be assumed that these muster rolls were never issued in favour of the workman. The employer though has placed on record muster rolls vide Ex.RW-1/E with effect from 25.12.1996 to 24.1.1997 and Ex.RW-1/A with effect from 25.1.1997 to 24.2.1997, but these will not advance the case of the employer since the employer has not placed on record muster rolls with effect from 25.11.1996 to 24.12.1996. Had the muster rolls been issued to the workman with effect from 25.11.1996 to 24.12.1996, the same ought to have been placed on record and then the inference could be drawn that the workman had absented himself. The plea of abandonment is required to be proved like any other fact. The plea of abandonment raised by the employer is against the facts placed on record. The workman has been engaged and dis-engaged in arbitrary manner by the employer. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.T. Lad and othersVs. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd., AIR 1979 Supreme Court 582 have held as under: “6. From the connotations reproduced above it clearly follows that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. In Buckingham Co. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd., AIR 1979 Supreme Court 582 have held as under: “6. From the connotations reproduced above it clearly follows that to constitute abandonment, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same. In Buckingham Co. V. Venkatiah (1964) 4 SCR 265 : ( AIR 1964 SC 1272 ), it was observed by this Court that under common law an interference that an employee has abandoned or relinquished service is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances an interference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can be assumed that the employee intended to abandon service. Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf. Thus whether there has been a voluntary abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case.” 8. In the instant case, case of the workman before the Labour Court was also that S/Sh. Led Ram, Man Singh, Khem Singh and Munshi Ram were retained while he was retrenched. It has been admitted by the employer that Man Singh and Khem Singh were junior to the workman but were retained. The explanation given by the employer is that they were engaged pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the fact of the matter is that the junior persons have been retained by the employer and the workman has been retrenched. It was in violation of section 25 (G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Award Annexure P-1 dated 19.7.2011 is set aside. The employer is directed to re-engage the workman forthwith as Beldar with seniority and continuity, but he will be entitled to compensation of `50,000/- instead of back wages. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.