JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has laid challenge to the award dated 7.5.2009, passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. whereby claim of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was appointed as Labourer by respondent No. 2-University during the month of December, 1997 and in this capacity he continued to work till 29th December, 2000. As per petitioner, his services were terminated on 29.12.2000 by respondent-University without following the due process of law. The petitioner being aggrieved with the alleged termination raised a Industrial Dispute by invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act”) and in this regard appropriate government referred the matter to the Labour Court and made following reference to the learned Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court for adjudication:- “Whether the termination of services of Sh. Rajiv Kumar son of Sh. Prem Singh w.e.f. 29.2.2000 by the Registrar, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, District Solan, HP without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the workman is proper and justified? If not, what relief and service benefits the above workman is entitled to?” 3. The petitioner-workman by way of claim petition stated before the learned Tribunal that he was appointed by respondent-University as Labourer in the month of December, 1997 on permanent nature of work and as such, he continued to work against the same post till 29.12.2000, on which date his services were illegally terminated by respondent-University without assigning any cogent reasons and justification and without following due process of law as prescribed under the provisions of Act. The petitioner specifically stated in the claim petition that prior to his illegal retrenchment, he had completed more than 240 days in the employment of respondent-university and as such, respondent was statutorily bound to comply with the procedure laid down in Section 25-F of the Act before retrenchment of the services of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that his services was continuous for the purpose of Section 25-B of the Act, since he had completed 240 days of employment in preceding calendar year of his service tenure and as such, he was entitled to protection under the Labour law legislation. The petitioner claimed that his services was continuous for the purpose of Section 25-B of the Act, since he had completed 240 days of employment in preceding calendar year of his service tenure and as such, he was entitled to protection under the Labour law legislation. Petitioner also averred that pursuant to his termination, he served a demand notice under Section 2A of the Act on respondent No. 2 claiming reinstatement along with all consequential benefits. However, conciliation proceedings instituted on behalf of the said notice of the petitioner, failed to yield any result and as such, matter was referred by the competent authority to respondent No. 1 which was ultimately registered as Reference No. 34 of 2003. 4. Record further reveals that respondent- University by way of filing reply contested and resisted the claim of the petitioner specifically stating therein that the services of the petitioner were never terminated by the respondent-University, rather petitioner himself abandoned the job and as such, claim, if any, on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable at all. By way of rejoinder, petitioner refuted all the averments contained in the reply filed by the respondent-University and reiterated his stand taken in the reference/claim petition. 5. Further perusal of the record suggest that learned tribunal passed the award dated 7.5.2009 and answered the reference in negative. While dismissing the claim of the petitioner-workman in its entirety, learned tribunal concluded that action of respondent-University in terminating the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 29.2.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act is legal, proper and justified as no provisions of the Act are attracted in the case of the petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, petitioner by way of present petition laid challenge to the same. 7. Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that impugned award dated 7.5.2009 (Annexure P3), is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same has been passed without proper application of mind by the learned Labour Court and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. 7. Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that impugned award dated 7.5.2009 (Annexure P3), is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same has been passed without proper application of mind by the learned Labour Court and as such, same deserve to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Gupta, further contended that learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim of the petitioner in its entirety failed to apply its mind to the exact controversy between the parties and has not appreciated the evidence adduced on record by the claimant-petitioner in its right perspective and as such, same cannot be allowed to be sustained. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that bare perusal of the award suggest that the same is not in conformity with the pleadings/evidence of the parties adduced on record by the respective parties. Mr. Gupta vehemently argued that since the precise controversy in this regard has not been appreciated, nor the facts in its entirety have been considered, the order under challenge deserves to be quashed and set-aside. As per Mr. Gupta, learned Court below while making the impugned award has miserably failed to take note of most important and undisputed document placed on record by the petitioner, which was sufficient to conclude that the petitioner had completed 244 days in the calendar year prior to his illegal retrenchment on 29.12.2000 and as such, findings of the learned Tribunal to the effect that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable in the present case, is contrary to the material on record and as such, impugned award deserves to be rectified in accordance with law. Mr. Gupta, while concluding his arguments, forcibly contended that once it stands proved on record that the petitioner had completed 240 days in preceding year before illegal retrenchment on 29.12.2000, learned Labour Court ought to have held his termination bad being violative of provisions of the Act. 8. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the respondent-university vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Mr. 8. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing the respondent-university vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal and the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. Mr. Jairath, forcibly contended that no interference whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, where it stands duly proved on record that the petitioner-workman himself had abandoned the job on 29.12.2000 and as such, there was no occasion whatsoever, for the respondent-University to comply with the provisions of the Act. During arguments having been made by him, he made this Court to travel through the document/evidence adduced on record by the respective parties to demonstrate that no documents worth the name have been made available on record by the petitioner-claimant suggestive of the fact that he had completed 240 days in preceding year prior to his illegal retrenchment on 29.12.2000. As per Mr. Jairath, petitioner-workman was appointed in the month December, 1997 to carry out the various seasonal field operations and as such, he was being engaged intermittently against seasonal work. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had worked at the newly Established Research Station of University Bhota w.e.f. May, 2000 to 31.2.2002 and he was engaged for seasonal field operations in the first instance. It is also contended that though the petitioner was engaged in December, 1997 by the respondent- University where he worked till October, 1999 and 2000 and completed 240 days. In the aforesaid back ground, learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition being devoid of merit. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 10. As per petitioner, he was appointed in the employment of University during the month of December, 1997, where he remained posted till 29.12.2000, when his services were illegally terminated by the respondent- University without any cogent reason. As per the petitioner, he had completed more than 240 days of the employment during the year, 1999-2000 preceding to his termination and during his services, he performed his duty with utmost care. As per the petitioner, he had completed more than 240 days of the employment during the year, 1999-2000 preceding to his termination and during his services, he performed his duty with utmost care. The petitioner further claimed that at the time of his retrenchment, no notice, as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Act was ever served upon him by the respondent- University, accordingly, petitioner prayed for reinstatement in the services with other consequential benefits. 11. On the other, respondent-University by way of filing detailed reply has refuted the claim put forth on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner remained in employment of the respondent-University from December, 1997 to 31.3.2002 as daily paid worker and worked in the Research fields of the respondent University and his employment/engagement was on the availability of the work. As per respondent, petitioner was engaged as daily paid labourer during the month of December, 1997 to carry out the various seasonal field operations and he worked at the newly established research station of University w.e.f. May 2000 to 31.3.2002. As per respondent, petitioner worked for 16 days in 1997, 219 days in 1998 and 194½ days in 1999 and thereafter he was retrenched from the casual seasonal work with due notice dated 20.10.1999 but later-on on the request having been made by him, respondent university allowed him to work for one month and he was again served with retrenchment notice. However, fact remains that thereafter he was engaged at newly established Research station, Bhota where he only completed 216 days in the year, 2000, 137½ days in 2001 and 52 days in 2002 and thereafter respondent has specifically denied that the services of the petitioner were ever continuous or the petitioner ever completed 240 days in any year from 1997 to 2002. 12. Petitioner with a view to substantiate his claim himself examined as PW-1 and stated that he was engaged as Labourer in H.P. Horticulture University Nauni since 1997 and continued to work till December, 2000 as per certificate mark A1 to A5 suggestive of the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Petitioner claimed that neither notice nor compensation was paid to him at the time of his removal and as such, termination being illegal deserves to be quashed and setaside. The petitioner also stated that vide mark A-6, University had sent Rs. Petitioner claimed that neither notice nor compensation was paid to him at the time of his removal and as such, termination being illegal deserves to be quashed and setaside. The petitioner also stated that vide mark A-6, University had sent Rs. 6000/- after three years of his removal, which was not accepted by him and same was sent back by registered letter mark A7. Petitioner also stated that his juniors S/Sh. Gurmeet, Ashwani and Kewal were retained at the time of his illegal retrenchment and they were still working and as such, he claimed his reinstatement. 13. Respondent-University with a view to rebut the aforesaid statement of the petitioner examined RW-1 Sh. I.D. Sharma, Section Officer, who categorically stated that the petitioner was engaged as daily paid labourer for seasonal work in December, 1997, where he worked for 16 days till 31.12.1997. As per RW-1, petitioner was reengaged in January, 1998 and he worked till December, 1998 by putting in 219 days. He also stated that from December, 1998 and during the year, 1999, petitioner worked for 190 days and in this regard he also proved on record copy of retrenchment notice Ex.RA. As per RW-1, petitioner was reengaged in February, 2000 for one month and thereafter was retrenched by notice dated 28.2.2000 Ex.RB, which was received by the petitioner, petitioner was again reengaged from May, 2000 to December, 2000 and in January, 2002. The respondent-University offered the petitioner to work on contract basis vide letter dated 19.1.2002 but the petitioner did not join on 31.12.2003. RW-1 also stated that respondent sent a bank draft of Rs. 6300/- to the petitioner as retrenchment compensation, which was not accepted by the petitioner. It also emerge from the record that the petitioner also claimed that at the time of his illegal retrenchment persons junior to him were retained by the respondent in clear violation of Section 25-G and 25-H of the Act, and claimed reengagement solely on the aforesaid basis along with consequential benefits. 14. This Court, while hearing the arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, had an occasion to peruse the record, where it clearly emerge that the respondent university had served a notice Ex.RA under Section 25-F to the petitioner and the petitioner was also paid retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 14. This Court, while hearing the arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the parties, had an occasion to peruse the record, where it clearly emerge that the respondent university had served a notice Ex.RA under Section 25-F to the petitioner and the petitioner was also paid retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 6300/-, which was not accepted by the petitioner but fact remains that there is no evidence be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the petitioner-workman suggestive of the fact that he had completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination, rather record adduced by the respondent-University suggest that the petitioner worked for 60 days in 1997, 219 days in 1998 and 42 days in 1999. It also stands proved on record that amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 6300/- sent by respondent-University to the petitioner was returned by him but factum of sending cheque of compensation stands duly proved with the production of document Mark A7. Since the petitioner has miserably failed to place on record any document before the Labour Court suggestive of the fact that he had completed 240 days in preceding year prior to his termination on 29.12.2000, this Court is an agreement with a view taken by the Labour Court that provisions of the Act were not attracted in the present case. Admittedly, in the present case petitioner has failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in preceding calendar year prior to his termination on 29.12.2000 and as such, respondent-University cannot be held guilty of having not complied with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Once, the petitioner-workman failed to prove that he had completed 240 days in preceding 12 months prior to his termination, there was no requirement, if any, of notice under Section 25-F of the Act and as such, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in this regard with the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 15. Similarly, record suggest that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that his juniors were retained at the time of his illegal termination and they are still continuing with the respondent department and as such, learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that there is no violation of Section 25-G of the Act. 16. 15. Similarly, record suggest that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that his juniors were retained at the time of his illegal termination and they are still continuing with the respondent department and as such, learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that there is no violation of Section 25-G of the Act. 16. Close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances on record clearly suggest that the respondent-University was able to prove before the learned Labour Court that the petitioner-workman was only engaged qua the seasonal work and at no point of time he was retained in the services for regular period, rather record produced on record by the respondent clearly suggest that the services of the petitioner was taken intermittently on the basis of availability of the work and as such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the learned Labour Court relying upon the judgments passed by this Court as well Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no relief whatsoever, can be extended to the petitioner-workman on the basis of the evidence adduced by him on record. 17. Perusal of the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties clearly suggest that the petitioner-workman was not engaged against any regular work, rather he was engaged intermittently on the basis of need of work on day to day basis and as such, it has been rightly concluded by the learned tribunal below that he had not right whatsoever to the post. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that if nature of service does not come within the purview of definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo), question of applicability of section 25-G does not arise. Hence, action of respondent-university in not resorting to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act in the present facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held bad. (See. 2006 (6) SCC 221 , case titled as Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and 2006 (2) SCC 794 in case titled as Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Subhash Chand & Anr. and Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Darbara Singh reported in 2006 LLR 68 SC and Municipal Council Samrala Vs. Sukhwinder Kaur reported in 2006 LLR 1009 SC) 18. and Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Darbara Singh reported in 2006 LLR 68 SC and Municipal Council Samrala Vs. Sukhwinder Kaur reported in 2006 LLR 1009 SC) 18. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, especially after perusing the record, this Court does not see any infirmity and illegality in the impugned award passed by the learned Labour Court and as such, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.