Judgment : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “employer” for convenience sake) has assailed the award dated 28.8.2012 rendered by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla in Reference No. 78 of 2009. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “workman” for convenience sake) was engaged by the employer on 19.8.1986. He was retrenched on 1.4.2000. He raised demand notice. The conciliation took place between the employer and workman. However, the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer furnished the failure report which led to making of Reference No. 78/2009, to the following effect: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Balak Ram S/o Shri Surat Ram workman by the Registrar, Dr. Y.S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 1.4.2000 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the workman is proper and justified? If not, what relief of back wages, seniority and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 2. The workman filed the claim petition, to which reply was filed by the employer. The Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, framed the issues and the claim petition was allowed on 28.8.2012. Retrenchment of the workman was declared illegal. He was ordered to be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity with effect from the date of his termination but without back wages. Hence this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The workman was engaged on 19.8.1986. Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned Advocate has placed before the Court, the evidence led by the parties before the Learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. It is evident from Annexure P-7 that the workman has worked for 219 days in the year 2000 and before that he had completed 316 days in the year 1999. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, learned Advocate that the workman is required to complete 240 days in a year. The workman is required to complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. 4. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate has vehemently argued that the workman was engaged on contract basis. No agreement has been placed on record to suggest that the workman was engaged on contractual basis. The workman is required to complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment. 4. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate has vehemently argued that the workman was engaged on contract basis. No agreement has been placed on record to suggest that the workman was engaged on contractual basis. RW-1 Liyakat Ali has led his evidence by way of affidavit and in his cross-examination he has specifically admitted that workman was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1986. The workman has appeared as PW-1 and he has categorically deposed that he was engaged on daily wage basis. 5. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, has also argued that the workman has abandoned the job. This plea can not be accepted in view of Annexure PA. In fact, the workman has been retrenched vide Annexure PA. The plea of abandonment raised by the employer is false. The plea of abandonment has to be proved like any other fact. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.T. Lad and others Vs. 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. 6. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, has relied upon Annexure P6 dated 25.7.2002. It will not advance the case of the employer. 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. 6. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, has relied upon Annexure P6 dated 25.7.2002. It will not advance the case of the employer. The workman has already been retrenched in the year 2000 and the employer has not led any tenable evidence to establish that even the letter dated 25.7.2002 was ever received by the workman. 7. Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate has lastly argued that the workman has absented himself. There is no evidence to this effect. Rather, it was not the case of the employer before the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. 8. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.