ORDER : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-employer aggrieved against the award dated 21/3/2017 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara, whereby, the claim raised by the respondent-workman has been accepted and it has been held that the services of the workman were terminated on 16/4/2009, the workman did not remain voluntarily absent, his termination was not valid and, therefore, he was entitled to be re-employed on the post which he held. The workman was also held entitled to 50% of the back wages for the period 16/4/2009 till he is re-employed. 2. The respondent workman raised the industrial dispute before the conciliation officer on 14th July, 2009 inter alia with the submissions that the petitioner company terminated his services w.e.f. 16/4/2009; on failure of conciliation proceedings the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Bhilwara for adjudication by its notification dated 18/1/2010. It was inter alia claimed by the workman that he was in employment of the company since 7/4/2007 and his services were terminated on 16/4/2009, despite completing 240 days in each calendar year provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') were not followed and, therefore, for violation of the provisions, his termination was illegal and, therefore, he be reinstated back in service with full back wages. 3. Reply to the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner denying the submissions made in the application. It was inter alia contended that the workman served till 16/4/2009 and from 17/4/2009 he remained absent voluntarily, for which notices dated 25/4/2009 and 14/5/2009 were sent, despite that he did not appear and as no termination took place there was no requirement to give retrenchment compensation and, therefore, the claim deserves dismissal. 4. On behalf of the workman three witnesses were examined, on behalf of the employer two witnesses were examined. 5. 4. On behalf of the workman three witnesses were examined, on behalf of the employer two witnesses were examined. 5. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was endorsement on the notices that as the workman did not appear on the main gate of the factory, the notices were not delivered to him, however, the fact that the notices were sent by post at the address of the workman has not been proved and based on the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services were terminated on 16/4/2009, the workman did not absent voluntarily and that on account of violation of provisions of the Act, the termination was not justified and consequently passed the award as noticed hereinbefore. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the workman did not stop coming to the factory voluntarily. It was emphasized that before conciliation officer the workman was offered re-employment, however he did not accept the same, which conduct by itself goes to prove that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the employment and was not interested in joining back and on that count alone the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Further submissions were made that the notices were issued to the workman and the fact that he did not appear at the gate also necessarily negates the case of the workman that he was interested in getting back into the service and, therefore, also the award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Honb'le Supreme Court in G.T. Lad & ors. v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. : (1979) 1 SCC 590 . 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 10. The Labour Court after analyzing the evidence, which came on record, came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 16/4/2009 and also came to the conclusion that the plea taken by the petitioner-company regarding workman voluntarily absenting from the service was not proved. 11. 10. The Labour Court after analyzing the evidence, which came on record, came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were terminated w.e.f. 16/4/2009 and also came to the conclusion that the plea taken by the petitioner-company regarding workman voluntarily absenting from the service was not proved. 11. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the course of conciliation proceedings, the employer was prepared to take the workman back in service, on account of his claiming wages for the period he did not work, he refused to join back the service, which conduct is suffice to disentitle him for grant of relief by the Labour Court, cannot be countenanced. 12. The Labour Court was required to determine the aspect as to whether the termination took place as alleged, whether the workman voluntarily absented from duty and to what relief the workman was entitled. 13. The conduct of the workman during the conciliation proceedings, wherein the employer offered re-employment to the workman, by itself cannot be a reason to come to a conclusion that the workman had abandoned the services and/or was not interested in joining the service of the employer or on that count the plea raised by the employer regarding voluntarily absenting from duty by the workman stands established and, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner in this regard is of no consequence. 14. The judgment in the case of G.T. Lad (supra) in no manner supports the case of the petitioner, wherein, it has been laid down that to constitute abandonment of service, there must be total or complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not to resume the same, which inference is not easily drawn unless from the length of absence and from other surrounding circumstances inference to that effect can be legitimately drawn and it can been assumed that the employee intended to abandon the service. It was further laid down that whether there has been a voluntarily abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in light of the surrounding circumstances of each case. 15. It was further laid down that whether there has been a voluntarily abandonment of service or not is a question of fact which has to be determined in light of the surrounding circumstances of each case. 15. In the present case, once the termination was found to be illegal, the fact that during the course of conciliation proceedings re-employment was offered, the workman did not accept the same on account of dispute pertaining to the wages from the date of termination till re-employment, by itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the workman had no intention to join back and that he had voluntarily abandoned the services. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and, the same is, therefore, dismissed.