JUDGMENT 1. The judgment and order dated 16.9.2005 passed in SBCWP No. 5462/2005 instituted by the appellant to set at naught the award dated 8.12.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara in Reference Case No.183/1999 is the subject matter of scrutiny in the present appeal. By the decision impugned, the award has been sustained. Noticeably, in spite of service of notice of the instant appeal, the respondent workman has not arranged for his representation. He similarly had remained unrepresented in the writ proceeding. 2. We have heard Mr.Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner.Briefly stated the essential facts are that according to the respondent workman, he was on 10.9.1997 appointed as Supervisor under the appellant and was on leave from 3.8.98 to 2.9.98. When he reported for duty on 3.9.98, the Weaving Master of the appellant Company refused to admit him without disclosing any reason for his disengagement. In course of the conciliation proceedings, the appellant Company on 18.9.1998 offered to take him back. However, when he reported for duty on 21.9.1998, the concerned Weaving Master pressurised him to resign and even threatened and intimidated him. In these circumstances, the respondent workman on 24.9.1998 submitted an application before the Conciliation Officer expressing his apprehension that he may be falsely implicated in some charge by the appellant Company and, therefore, preferred to get his dues released. He denied the allegation levelled against him that he had deliberately not reported for duty in time and, thus, had consciously abandoned his employment. In the reference that was eventually made to the learned Labour Court to determine as to whether his discontinuance on and from 3.9.1998 was valid or not, he reiterated the above stand. 3. The appellant Company in its written statement pleaded that the respondent workman had been engaged as a Helper till 31.7.1998, whereafter on and from 1.8.1998, he on his own volition had preferred not to attend his duties. It claimed that though by communications dated 18.9.98, 23.9.98 and 8.10.98, the respondent workman was intimated of his absence from duties, he did neither respond thereto nor did return to work. It denied the allegation that the Weaving Master had pressurised him to resign. In course of the reference also, the appellant Company on 8.8.2001 did in writing express its willingness to take the respondent back in service but the latter did not respond thereto. 4. It denied the allegation that the Weaving Master had pressurised him to resign. In course of the reference also, the appellant Company on 8.8.2001 did in writing express its willingness to take the respondent back in service but the latter did not respond thereto. 4. Learned Labour Court on the basis of the materials on record, held that during the period from 10.9.97 to 31.7.98, the respondent workman had rendered continuous service for over 240 days and as the mandatory requirement of Section 25F of the Act had not been complied with, his ouster was illegal. It also declined to accept the plea of the appellant Company that he had wilfully remained absent from duties. Noticing however the appellant Company's offer to take him back in service as made on 8.8.2001, the learned Labour Court while directing the reinstatement of the respondent workman with effect from 3.9.1998, granted 50% of his back wages for the period commencing therefrom till 8.8.2001. The back wages for the period thereafter i.e. 8.8.2001 onwards, was not granted. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order, having refused to interfere with the award, the instant appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. Nahar, learned counsel for the appellant Company has argued that it being more than apparent from the materials on record that the respondent workman had voluntarily abandoned his duties and that inspite of repeated efforts, made by the appellant Company, he had chosen not to return, he is not entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act and, thus, the award as well as the impugned judgment & order are liable to be set aside. 6. There being no default or omission on the part of the appellant Company in retaining the respondent workman in its services as he, on his own volition, had abandoned the same, the direction for his reinstatement with back wages, if allowed to stand, would result in travesty of justice, he urged. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and documents on record, we are left unconvinced that as on 3.9.98, the respondent had, on his own will, left the services of the appellant Company. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and documents on record, we are left unconvinced that as on 3.9.98, the respondent had, on his own will, left the services of the appellant Company. The learned Labour Court while assessing the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent to the effect that between 3.8.98 and 2.9.98, he was ailing, observed that the same could not be discarded as unacceptable. In that view of the matter, as on 31.7.98/2.8.98, the respondent had rendered more than 240 days of service in the calendar year preceding 3.9.98 and as the mandate of Section 25F of the Act, had not been adhered-to by the appellant Company, there is no persuasive reason to differ from the finding that discontinuance of his service as on 3.9.98 had been illegal. 8. Be that as it may, the recorded fact that on 18.9.98 and 8.8.2001, the appellant Company had offered to take the respondent back in service, cannot be readily discounted. To reiterate, the respondent, inspite of service of notice, did not enter appearance both in the writ proceeding as well as in the appeal. Almost two decades have passed in between. There is no material on record to demonstrate in overwhelming terms that he has not been gainfully employed till date. It is also not evident that pursuant to the award, he had reported for duty being armed therewith seeking reinstatement. To the contrary, on 24.9.98, he, in writing before the Conciliation Officer, had preferred to be paid his dues, being disinclined to join the services of the appellant Company. 9. On a cumulative consideration of all above, we are thus of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the award and the decision rendered in the writ petition are sustained, so far as those determine the discontinuance of service of the respondent to be illegal and direct his reinstatement. Ordered accordingly. 10. The award dated 8.12.2004 and the impugned judgment and order dated 16.9.2005 are, therefore, to the above extent, modified. In the singular facts & circumstances of the case, we hold that the respondent would not be entitled to any back wages. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed.Writ Appeal party allowed. *******