JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition, is directed by the aggrieved workman, against, the disaffirmative findings recorded by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, Upon, the hereinafter extracted reference :- “Whether the plea of the Executive Engineer, HPSEB (E) Division Nahan that Shri Kamal Kumar s/o Sh. Sansar Singh had left the job of his own accord after 20.3.1992 is justified? If not, what seniority, service benefit and relief Shri Kamal Kumar S/o Shri Sansar Singh is entitled to?” 2. A perusal of the musterolls, maintained by the employer, vis-à-vis, the workman, and, embodied in Ex.RA and RB, makes, a disclosure qua (i) the workman not completing the mandatorily contemplated period of 240 days, of continuous service, in the year immediately preceding, the stage of his purportedly abandoning his job; (b) nor hence, thereupon, it was incumbent upon the employer to mete, the apt mandatory statutory compliance(s), vis-a-vis, the mandate enshrined in Section 25(f), of, the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, contended with much vigour before this Court, (a) that with the respondents/employers, rather enacting the HPSEB Industrial Establishment Standing Orders, orders whereof, stand, embodied in Annexure P-2, appended with the writ petition, (b) AND, with sub clause (2) to Clause 14 thereof rather hence carving an exception, vis-a-vis, the prior thereto provisions bearing analogity, vis-a-vis, the provisions cast in Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (c) besides with a prescription standing embodied therein, vis-a-vis, even where any workman rather renders service, for a period, less than one year, yet his services being not amenable for termination, (d) unless, the order of termination is preceded by a 30 days' notice in writing, along with pay and allowance in lieu thereof, (e) thereupon, he contends that hence when RW-1, in his deposition, as, occurring in his cross-examination, has rendered acquiescences, that, in consonance therewith no notice nor compensation being purveyed to the workman, at the time of his purportedly abandoning, his job, (f) thereupon, evident non compliance with the mandatory afore provisions, hence renders the disengagement from service of the workman, to be both, illegal and unlawful. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court also cannot be accepted, in view of the decision, of this Court, rendered in CWP No. 1383 of 2005, in a case titled as Executive Engineer Joginder Nagar and Sanju son of Sh. Gantu Ram, Village Dalana, PO Ballhjoli, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, wherein this Court, has set-forth, the, hereinafter extracted trite expostulation of law:- “The H.P. State Electricity Board shall be exempted from all the provisions of standing Orders Act, and thereafter no 10 days notice is required to be given under Standing Orders to the employee. Admittedly, the employees had not completed 240 days and the Tribunal could not come to the rescue of the employee” A reading whereof makes ex-facie, unfoldings, qua the H.P. State Electricity Board, standing exempted from applying, vis-a-vis, any workmen engaged by it, the provisions embodied in Standing Orders Act, (i) and, also an expostulation of law, rather stands embodied therein qua thereafter no 10 days' notice, in consonance with sub clause (2) of Clause 14, of, the standing orders, hence warranting its issuance upon the workman, importantly preceding his purported disengagement, from service. Consequently, the afore reared ground does not carry any tenacity, given, the hereinabove extracted mandate, embodied in the afore verdict of this Court, verdict whereof, hereat too, also holds the apt operation and sway. 4. Be that as it may, the afore rendered valid conclusion, occurring, in, the impugned award, ex-facie, yet cannot underscore any further conclusion, qua, the, Presiding Officer concerned, rather not wandering astray, from, the reference, made vis-a-vis, him, (i) reference whereof, rather enjoined a decision, being recorded, vis-a-vis, the workman, purportedly abandoning his job, on 28.3.1992. Consequently, dehors, the afore made valid conclusion, by the learned Industrial Tribunal, the latter was also enjoined to dwell into, and, focus, upon, the inner nuance of the reference made to it, of, the industrial dispute, as, arose, inter se the workman and the employer. Consequently, dehors, the afore made valid conclusion, by the learned Industrial Tribunal, the latter was also enjoined to dwell into, and, focus, upon, the inner nuance of the reference made to it, of, the industrial dispute, as, arose, inter se the workman and the employer. However, under the impugned award, the learned Industrial Tribunal has while meteing an answer, upon, the referred issue appertaining, to the apt afore industrial dispute, which occurred inter se the workman, and, his employer, (ii) rather, has, entirely founded, it, upon the factum, of, the disengagement, from, service of the workman not standing proven to be ingrained with any vice, of, any illegality, (iii) whereupon, reiteratedly, and, obviously, the core industrial dispute which emerged inter se the workman, and, the employer, remained not answered, in, segregation, vis-a-vis, the issue preceding therewith, whereas, it comprised, the apt issue, for rendition, of an answer thereon. The learned Industrial Tribunal had rested its conclusion, upon, issue No.2, merely, upon, a bald deposition existing in the examination-in-chief of RW-1, and, has omitted, to mete, the, appropriate deference, vis-a-vis, the deposition of RW-1, as, existing at the end of his cross-examination, wherein he echoes, qua no letter standing issued by the employer, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, with any request therein, for, his rejoining his duties. Apt emergences therefrom, are, when a daily wager, is, normally, rather wholly dependent upon the per diem wages, meted to him, by his employer, and, unless evidence was adduced, on record by the employer qua (a) his being gainfully employed elsewhere, (b) and, his holding sufficient agricultural property, wherefrom, he hence reared handsome pecuniary gains, (c) whereupon, he stood hence constrained to abandon his job, (d) thereupon, the employer was not enjoined to make any conclusion, merely, given his remaining absent from work, and, also when may be his absence, on certain days, may be engendered, from, his condonable ailment, qua hence the workman abandoning his job, (e) rather, it was incumbent, upon, the employer, to under an intimation to the workman, and, upon, availability of work, hence, make, a, request upon him to rejoin his duties, or when the absence of the workman from his work, stood sequelled by his condonable sickness, the employer was enjoined, to, on his rejoining his duties, rather permit him to mark his presence, in the musterolls. Even though, the workman has not pleaded qua his falling sick, preceding his purportedly abandoning his job, hence he may be precluded, to rear the aforesaid ground, in, explication, vis-a-vis, his purported absence, from his duty. Nonetheless, the employer was obliged, to adduce evidence that, vis-a-vis, the days whereat he was absent, work being available, and, also to adduce evidence, that, yet the workman, rather willfully, and, without any reasonable, and, condonable cause, hence, remaining absent, (f) and, its also enjoined, to adduce evidence, qua hence despite its preceding therewith issuing, a, request upon, him, for his rejoining the duties, his remaining unresponsive thereto. However, the aforesaid evidence remained unadduced, and, when the workman, for omission, of, afore referred evidence, is, hence concluded to be wholly dependent, upon, his per diem wages, hence, this Court, cannot, infer that he had purportedly abandoned his job. More so, reiteratedly when the employer has not adduced, any evidence qua, even after, his being requested, to rejoin his duty, his not meteing compliance therewith. In aftermath, it is to be concluded that the plea reared by the employer, vis-a-vis, the workman abandoning his job, is, a per se flimsy plea, and, does not warrant its being accepted by this Court. Consequently, the impugned award is set aside, and, the reference, is, answered in the affirmative. 5. However, the aggrieved workman, rendered less than 240 days of continuous service, preceding his being purportedly disengaged by his employer, and, also when his purported disengagement occurred in the year 1992, besides when the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Man Singh, reported in 2012(3) SLR 344 (S.C.), the relevant paragraph No.6 whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “6. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondents-workmen were engaged as 'daily wagers' and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet ends of justice.” (a) has, upon the afore factual scenario held, that, it would be unjustifiable to afford relief of reinstatement, rather the affording of relief of monetary compensation, being the befitting remedy. Consequently, while applying, the mandate thereof, the relief of reinstatement is declined, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, whereas, relief of monetary compensation, comprised, in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Consequently, while applying, the mandate thereof, the relief of reinstatement is declined, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, whereas, relief of monetary compensation, comprised, in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only), is awarded, vis-a-vis, the aggrieved workman/petitioner herein. The aforesaid amount shall be disbursed, to the petitioner/workman, by his employer, within, a period of six weeks from today, and, in case failure of disbursement thereof, to, the aggrieved workman/petitioner, it shall carry interest @ 12 % per annum commencing, from, six weeks hereafter till realization thereof. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the award impugned before this Court, is set aside, and, the instant petition stands disposed, of, in the manner aforesaid. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.