JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 26898/2018 Learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the application. The same is allowed. 2. Documents filed with the application are taken on record. D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 26897/2018 We are prepared to hear arguments in the appeal today itself. The application seeking vacation of the ex-parte stay is accordingly dismissed. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 172/2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Challenge is to the judgment dated 04/12/2017 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant which laid challenge to an award dated 17/11/2015. As per the award the workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages. 4. Case of the workman was that he worked from 01/09/1994 and without any enquiry on 27/10/2006 he was told that his service has been terminated. 5. In response to the statement of claim, case of the appellant was that the workman had stopped reporting for work from 27/10/2006. 6. With respect to the pleadings of the parties, we need to highlight that the appellant never pleaded in the reply that after the workman voluntarily abandoned the job he made a request that money lying to his credit in the Employees Provident Fund accounts with the Commissioner EPF should be released to him and for which management of the appellant was requested to issue the necessary documents. 7. Relevant of said lack of pleading would soon emerge as we proceed further to consider the arguments advanced. 8. Now, it is apparent that the appellant had admitted the plea of the workman that he had worked from 01/09/1994 till 26/10/2006 and the issue was whether it was a case of voluntary abandonment of job or wrongful termination. 9. With respect to the correspondence exchanged between the parties the labour court returned a finding that it is a case of wrongful termination of the service. 10. The first contention advanced in the appeal is that the workman made the management issue all the documents which were required for the workman to withdraw money lying to his credit in the accounts of the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner and this establishes voluntary abandonment. 11. We have called upon counsel for the appellant to show from the record of the labour court whether any such document was proved? Counsel has shown none. 11. We have called upon counsel for the appellant to show from the record of the labour court whether any such document was proved? Counsel has shown none. Counsel simply argues that this was stated in the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the witness of the appellant which is annexed as Ann.6 to the writ petition. In para 7 of the affidavit it is simply pleaded that after settling his accounts the workman took even the Provident Fund. Now, it is not the case of the appellant that the management was maintaining the Provident Fund account of the workman. Case argued before us is that the workman made the management sign the paper on strength whereof the workman could receive the money to his credit with the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner. There is no proof of said assertion. Admittedly, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with. 12. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is a case of dismissal from service. The award directing reinstatement with 50% backwages as indicated hereinabove suffer from no infirmity. 13. We have today allowed D.B. Civil Misc.Application No.26898/2018 filed by the appellant bringing on record that after the respondent's services were terminated, from 01/04/2011 till 31/08/2013 i.e. 29 months, as a contractor of Pacific Exports and Imports he was paid 1,30,440/- Rs. and from 01/09/2013 to 31/12/2015 as a contractor of Nisha Collection he was paid Rs. 1,10,350/-. 14. For 29 months, as a contractor, the workman earned Rs. 1,30,440/- which comes to less than Rs. 4,000/- per month. From 01/09/2013 till 31/12/2015 for a period of 27 months from Nisha Collection, as a contractor, he earned Rs. 1,10,350/- which comes to less than Rs. 3,000/- per month. Now, to keep the body and soul together the workman had to undertake some petty jobs as a contractor and thus these payments have to be ignored. 15. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 16. The appeal is dismissed.