JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner/HPSEB/employer (hereinafter referred to as =the employer') laying challenge to the award of the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P., dated 15.10.2013, passed in Reference No. 281 of 2012, whereby the reference petition of the petitioner therein, who was workman and respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as =the workman'), was partly allowed and he was held entitled to seniority, continuity in service from the date of his termination i.e. 25.04.1998 except back wages and the petitioner herein was also directed to regularize the services of the workman. 2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the learned Tribunal below determined and adjudicated the following reference: “Whether termination of the services of Shri Jagdish Chand s/o sh. Tulsi Ram, Village & Post Office Chalarag, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi by the Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B. Electrical Division, Joginder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 25.4.1998 without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, to what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above workman is entitled to from the above employer?” 3. As per the workman, he was engaged by the respondents/employer as Beldar on and w.e.f. 25.11.1997 and he worked as such upto 24.04.1998 under the supervision of the Assistant Engineer, HPSEB Sub Division, Makriri. The workman was given fictional breaks and on 25.04.1998 his services were terminated by verbal orders. Before his alleged termination, neither notice was served upon him nor he was charge sheeted. No inquiry of misconduct was ever conducted and no compensation was paid to him by the employer. As per the workman his services were terminated only on the pretext that work and funds are not available and he will be re-engaged as and when the same will be available. The workman has further contended that he approached the authorities for his re-engagement, but in vain. The workman approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application, but the same was dismissed on 27.02.2002 for want of jurisdiction. The fact qua dismissal of the original application was not conveyed to the workman by his counsel and he only came to know about this when he personally visited his counsel. The workman approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application, but the same was dismissed on 27.02.2002 for want of jurisdiction. The fact qua dismissal of the original application was not conveyed to the workman by his counsel and he only came to know about this when he personally visited his counsel. Subsequently, a demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as =the Act') was served to the employer by him. Conciliation proceedings failed and the failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government, but the appropriate Government did not refer the matter to the learned Court on the ground that the workman did not complete 240 days preceding his retrenchment. The workman challenged the same order of not referring the matter in the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. by way of maintaining CWP No. 2758 of 2008, which was decided on 14.05.2012. The Hon'ble High Court of H.P. through its judgment dated 14.05.2012, set aside the order, dated 04.04.2008, of the Labour Commissioner, Shimla, whereby the Commissioner refused to refer the matter to the Court. Thus, the above said reference was referred by the appropriate Government to the learned Tribunal below for determination and adjudication. The workman has further contended therein that some of his juniors were retained at the time of his termination and some fresh hands have also been engaged by the respondent/employer. The workman was not re-engaged and persons, whose services were engaged by the respondent/employer on daily wage basis w.e.f. 25.11.1997, were regularized by them. The workman had also contended that the act and conduct of the respondent was not only illegal and unjustified but was also violative of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act. Lastly, the workman prayed for the substantives reliefs, viz., setting aside the termination order dated 25.04.1998, reinstatement, full back wages, seniority and continuity of service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 25.11.1997. 4. In reply to the reference petition, the petitioner herein, (employer) averred that the workman was engaged as daily waged beldar on 25.11.1997 and he worked as such upto 24.04.1998. As per the employer, the workman was never disengaged, in fact, he left the job voluntarily and he did not approach Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer for re-engagement. 4. In reply to the reference petition, the petitioner herein, (employer) averred that the workman was engaged as daily waged beldar on 25.11.1997 and he worked as such upto 24.04.1998. As per the employer, the workman was never disengaged, in fact, he left the job voluntarily and he did not approach Assistant Engineer or Junior Engineer for re-engagement. It is further contended that against the termination order, workman firstly approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal then Hon'ble High Court of H.P. The workman abandoned the job despite availability of work and thus he cannot claim parity with the workmen, who have been named by the workman, since they worked continuously. The workman, as per the knowledge of the employer, had undertaken SSB training at Sarahan after abandoning the job. The employer has further contended that no provision has been violated and now re-engagement of the workman is not possible due to unavailability of work. Ultimately, the respondent therein prayed for dismissal of the reference petition. 4. The learned Tribunal below has framed the following issues for determination: “1. Whether the termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent w.e.f. 25.04.1998 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 2. Relief.” After deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the workman, the reference was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal below and the workman was ordered to be re-engaged forthwith with seniority, continuity in service from the date of his illegal termination, i.e. 25.04.1998, except back wages, and the respondent was also directed to consider the case of the workman for regularization of service. The learned Tribunal below also clarified that if the services of any person junior to the workman have already been regularized, the workman shall be entitled to regularization from the date/month of the regularization of the services of his juniors. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The workman tendered in affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the reference petition. In his cross-examination he has denied that he was not disengaged. He had undergone SSB training at Sarahan in the year 1994-95. On the other hand, Shri Atul Mehta, Executive engineer, HPSEB, Jogindernagar (RW-1) also tendered his affidavit, Ex. 6. The workman tendered in affidavit, Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the contents of the reference petition. In his cross-examination he has denied that he was not disengaged. He had undergone SSB training at Sarahan in the year 1994-95. On the other hand, Shri Atul Mehta, Executive engineer, HPSEB, Jogindernagar (RW-1) also tendered his affidavit, Ex. RW-1/A. He, in his cross-examination, has deposed that no notice was served to the petitioner for resuming the duties and no departmental proceedings were initiated. This witness has admitted that persons junior to the workman are serving under him. He has also admitted that after 25.04.1998, new/fresh hands have been employed and no opportunity was afforded to the workman. 7. Both workman and the employer acknowledge that the workman was engaged as a daily waged beldar on 25.11.1997 and he continued as such upto 24.04.1998. As per the workman, he was terminated on and w.e.f. 25.04.1998, whereas as per the employer, he abandoned the job on his own. Abandonment is to be established and not to be presumed lightly. In the given facts and circumstances, when no notice was ever served upon the workman by the employer calling him to resume his duties, abandonment cannot be attributed to the workman. Moreover, nothing is emanating from the record that proceedings were ever initiated against the workman for willful absence. Thus, the plea of willful abandonment by the workman raised by the employer goes unestablished. The workman, in his cross-examination, deposed that he had undergone SSB training during the years 1994-95, then also there is no question of abandonment of services by him. 8. Mandays chart, Ex. RW-1/B, portrays that the workman did not complete 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of his termination, i.e. 25.04.1998, as mandated by Section 25-B of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-B are not attracted. A bare perusal of seniority list of daily waged beldars, Ex. PW-1/B, reveals that persons junior to the workman were retained. This fact is further fortified by RW-1 that persons junior to the workman are working under him and new persons have also been appointed. Thus, after perusal of seniority list and scrutiny of statement of RW-1, it clearly and unambiguously stands established that there had been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, rendering the termination of the workman illegal. Thus, after perusal of seniority list and scrutiny of statement of RW-1, it clearly and unambiguously stands established that there had been violation of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act, rendering the termination of the workman illegal. It is not at all obligatory for a workman to have completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination to take benefits of the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act. 9. In Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan and another, (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 538, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the employer cannot terminate the services of the workman until and unless principles of natural justice have been followed and the workman has been provided reasonable opportunity to explain himself before terminating his services on the basis of abandonment of job. 10. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. The award passed by the learned Tribunal below is just, reasoned and after properly appreciating the facts to their right perspective and the law has been applied correctly. The petition being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. 11. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand (s) disposed of.