JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of these two writ petitions, which have been filed against the award passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in Reference No. 84 of 2005, decided on 13.07.2009, the petitioners herein have challenged the same as Reference petition has been answered by learned Labour Court against the petitioners/ workmen. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of both the petitions are that the following Reference was received for the purpose of adjudication by learned Labour Court:- “Whether the termination of the services of 1. Shri Pawan Kumar S/O Shri Baldev Singh 2. Beer Singh S/O Shri Baldev Singh 3. Shri Heera Pal S/O Shri Ram Saran and Shri Raj Kumar S/O Shri Mullu Ram workmen by the Executive Engineer, HPSEB Electrical Division Parwanoo, District Solan w.e.f. 20.8.1999, 20.8.1999, 20.12.1999 and 20.2.2000 without complying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workmen are entitled to?” 3. As per the claim putforth by the claimants before learned Labour Court, they were continuously working as workmen with the respondent Board from April, 1990 at Barotiwala and Baddi Electrical Station in Operation Section, however, their services were illegally terminated on 01.07.2001 by making them believe that as new muster roll had not been received by the concerned Sub Division for the month of July, 2001, therefore, the workmen need not to come on duty on 01.07.2001 and the workmen shall be called for duty as and when new muster rolls are received. It was further the contention of the workmen that as they had been working since year 1990 and had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year and further that as they had completed more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date on which date their services were illegally terminated, therefore, their termination was in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. The claim so putforth by the claimants was contested by the respondent Board inter alia on the ground that the services of the workmen were not terminated as alleged. According to the respondent Board, the workmen in fact had voluntarily abandoned their jobs. 4. The claim so putforth by the claimants was contested by the respondent Board inter alia on the ground that the services of the workmen were not terminated as alleged. According to the respondent Board, the workmen in fact had voluntarily abandoned their jobs. It was further the case of the respondent Board that the date of initial engagement of the workmen was also not correctly stated by them and the correct dates of their engagements were as under:- Pawan Kumar 26.01.1991 Beer Singh 01.04.1990 Raj Kumar 26.05.1990 and the date on which they voluntarily abandoned their jobs was 21.08.1999, as far as Pawan Kumar and Beer Singh were concerned and 21.02.2000 as far as Raj Kumar was concerned. 5. It was further the case of the respondent Board that even otherwise the workmen were not entitled to any relief as they had not completed more than 240 days either in any calendar year or in the preceding 12 months from the date when they had voluntarily abandoned their jobs. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the services of the petitioners were illegally terminated by the respondent without complying with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, its effect? …. OPP 2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief, the petitioners are entitled to? … OPP 3. Whether the petition in the present form is not maintainable as the petitioners have no cause of action? … OPR 4. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? … OPR 5. Relief. 7. On the basis of evidence produced on record by the respective parties, the issues so framed by the learned Labour Court were answered as under:- Issue No. 1 No. Issue No. 2 Not entitled to any relief. Issue No. 3 No. Issue No. 4 No. Relief Reference answered in negative per operative part of award. 8. Reference petition was accordingly dismissed by learned Labour Court. 9. Feeling aggrieved, Pawan Kujmar and Raj Kumar, have filed these petitions. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the award passed by learned Labour Court. 11. 8. Reference petition was accordingly dismissed by learned Labour Court. 9. Feeling aggrieved, Pawan Kujmar and Raj Kumar, have filed these petitions. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the award passed by learned Labour Court. 11. A perusal of the award passed by learned Court below demonstrates that while deciding Issue No. 1 against the workmen and in favour of the respondent Board, what weighed with learned Labour Court was that the workmen were not able to prove that they had put in more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of the alleged termination of their services. On these basis, it was held by learned Labour Court that the workmen were not entitled to any service benefits as they had failed to prove that they had worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding their termination. 12. In my considered view, while arriving at the said conclusion, learned Labour Court has erred in not appreciating the stand taken by the respondent Board before learned Labour Court, which was that the workmen had voluntarily abandoned their jobs. In fact, Shri J.S. Rana, the then Assistant Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Sub Division Barotiwala, who deposed on behalf of the respondent Board as RW-1, stated in his examination-in-chief that the workmen had abandoned their jobs on their own and their services were not terminated. Though, he also deposed before learned Court below that none of the workmen had completed 240 working days in any calendar year preceding their termination but the fact of the matter still remains that the specific stand taken by the respondent Board that the workmen in fact voluntarily abandoned their jobs has not been adjudicated upon by learned Labour Court. 13. In my considered view, learned Labour Court ought to have returned findings on this point as to whether the contention of the respondent Board that the workmen had voluntarily abandoned their jobs stood proved by the respondent Board or not and in case, conclusion was to the contrary then the factum of workmen not having completed 240 days as on the date when their services were terminated was of no consequence in the facts of the present case. This is for the reason that if stood proved that workmen had not abandoned the job, then learned Labour Court was bound to return findings on the legality of the act of respondent Board of arbitrarily doing away with the services of petitioners. 14. Accordingly, in view of my findings returned above, these two writ petitions are allowed and the award passed by learned Labour Court in Reference No. 84 of 2005 decided on 13.07.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Labour Court to adjudicate upon the Reference afresh. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel representing the parties that as the matter is being remanded back, in the interest of justice, the claimants as well as respondent Board be given an opportunity to produce additional evidence in case so required. Accordingly, it is directed that in either the claimants/petitioners or the respondent Board make request before learned Labour Court to give them an opportunity to lead additional evidence then one opportunity be accordingly provided. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before learned Labour Court on 17.04.2017. Taking into consideration the fact that the Reference is of the year 2005, this Court hopes and expects that learned Labour Court shall adjudicate upon the Reference on or before 31.12.2017. 15. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.