JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The hereinafter extracted reference, was, referred, to the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, at Shimla, for, an adjudication being rendered thereon:- “Whether the plea of the Principal DAV Centenary Public School, Kumar Hatti, District Solan, that Ashwani Kumar S/o Shri Hari Nand Sharma (Accountant) worker left the job of his own accord w.e.f. 1.6.2002 and without serving any notice for absenteeism and abandonment, is legal and justified? If not, to what seniority, back wages, service benefits and relief, the concerned workman is entitled to?” Upon, the afore extracted reference, the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, meted an answer, vis-a-vis, the workman/respondent herein. The employer/petitioner herein hence being aggrieved therefrom, has, through the instant writ petition, cast a challenge thereon. 2. The workman/respondent herein, under, letter of 23.11.2000 hence stood appointed by the employer/petitioner herein, for, performing the avocation, of, an accountant. A perusal of the afore appointment letter, displays, that the initial term/tenure of appointment, against, the afore post hence being for a period of one year, and, a further recital, is, borne therein qua the service(s) of the workman/respondent herein, against the afore post, being likely to be regularized, after, expiry of the afore period or tenure, of, one year. In pursuance to the afore appointment letter, the, workman/respondent herein joined his duties, in the afore capacity, with, the petitioner herein/employer. The workman/respondent herein, hence, after completing, the, apt tenure of one year, against, the afore post, rather stood under, a, letter of 1.6.2002 hence meted an extension of two months, for, hence performing, his duties with the employer/petitioner herein, against the post of an accountant, whereagainst, he stood initially, appointed under Ex.PA. 3. However, a dispute arose inter se the workman, and, the employer, and, on failure, of, conciliation, of, the relevant dispute, rather sequelled, the hereinabove extracted reference, being made, for meteing, of, an adjudication thereon, vis-a-vis, the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The learned tribunal, aptly, on meteing apt deference, to the admission, borne in the cross-examination, of RW-1 qua the workman/respondent herein, not abandoning his job, rather his quitting it, given his not being selected, in pursuance, to the culmination, of, the relevant recruitment process, standing initiated by the employer, hence naturally answered the afore extracted reference, in the affirmative, and, granted the relief of reinstatement, and, alongwith back wages, to, the workman/respondent herein. 4. 4. Be that as it may, without faulting, the, initiation, and, culmination, of, the recruitment process(es), embarked, upon, by the employer, for hence making appointment against the post of an accountant, and, in sequel whereto, one Dhani Ram Kapil, stood selected, (a) the paramount conundrum, which is enjoined to be affirmatively rested, is encapsulated in the workman/respondent herein, given, his on the afore anvil, hence standing terminated, from, the post of an accountant, whereagainst, he stood initially appointed, and, whereafter the afore extension, stood meted to him, (ii) whereupon, hence the respondent/workman, rather, falls, within, the ambit of the coinage “retrenchment”, statutorily defined in sub-section (oo) of Section, 2 of, the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “(oo) "retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non- renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill- health;]” The afore findings rendered by this Court qua the respondent/workman standing retrenched, from, employment, by his employer, hence, also entails this Court, to determine, whether the length of service, rendered by the workman/respondent herein, under, his employer, rather falling within, the definition of Section 25-B, of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 25B. Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-- (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-- (i) ninety- five days, in the case of workman employed below ground ina min; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days in any other case.” It is not controverted by the employer, nor evidence exists on record, that, the respondent herein/workman, did not render the requisite statutorily enjoined period, of continuous service, under, his employer/petitioner herein. The effect thereof, is, qua, the mandate of Section 25-F, of, the Act, begetting its apt attraction hereat, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 25F. The effect thereof, is, qua, the mandate of Section 25-F, of, the Act, begetting its apt attraction hereat, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-- (a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice: (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette]. (i) and, on reading, and, application whereof, it was incumbent, upon, the employer, to hence prior to dispensing with the services, of the respondent/workman, to hence mete absolute compliance, with the peremptory statutory conditions, as, stand delineated therein. However, evidence qua compliance therewith being meted, by the employer/petitioner herein, rather does not exist on record. Consequently, with, the peremptory mandate, of, the afore statutory provisions, being transgressed, thereupon, the retrenchment or disengagement or termination of services of the respondent herein/workman, by the petitioner herein/employer, is rendered both obviously faulted, and, vitiated. 5. In summa, the impugned verdict, rendered for reinstatement, in service, of the respondent herein/workman, by his employer/respondent herein, is not tainted with any vice of mis-appreciation of evidence, on record, nor is stained with any vice of gross misapplication, of, the germane applicable thereon, hence statutory principles. 6. 5. In summa, the impugned verdict, rendered for reinstatement, in service, of the respondent herein/workman, by his employer/respondent herein, is not tainted with any vice of mis-appreciation of evidence, on record, nor is stained with any vice of gross misapplication, of, the germane applicable thereon, hence statutory principles. 6. Further more, the workman in his testimony, rendered an echoing qua, during, the period of his disengagement, his performing agricultural work, and, therefrom his rearing an income, echoing whereof remained unshattered, of, its efficacy, (i) given the employer failing to lead any evidence in rebuttal thereof, rather carrying an echoing qua the agricultural income, reared by the workman, during, the period of his disengagement or termination or retrenchment, being comprised in a sum equivalent, to the income, as, derived, by him, from his relevant employment, (ii) whereupon a firm inference, is sparked, qua the quantum of back wages assessed by the learned tribunal, vis-a-vis, the workman also not suffering from any gross fallibility. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned verdict is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.