ORDER : 1. As per the appellant he was taken as a daily wager on 12.06.1991 and his services were verbally terminated on 02.04.1992. So pleading he claimed violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also pleaded violation of Section 25-G by naming persons stated to be appointed after him retained in service. 2. The defence was that the appellant voluntarily stopped reporting for work after 25.03.1992. 3. In view of the evidence led before the learned labour Court and it being proved that in the month of March the appellant had reported for work only for 18 days, the learned Judge Labour Court returned two findings. 4. Calculating the number of work in days it was held that the appellant did not render service for 240 days and thus there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. On the other issue of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947 being violated the learned labour Court held that it is a case of voluntarily abandoning duty w.e.f. 16.03.1992. 5. Challenge to the award before the learned Single Judge and in the appeal is premised on violation of Section 25-G of the Act of 1947. 6. Learned Counsel repeatedly and vehemently urges as to where from the date 16.03.1992 has been culled out by the learned labour Court. As per the respondents the workman had stopped reporting himself for duties after 25.03.1992 and it appears that the date 16.03.1992 in the award is a typographical mistake. The evidence establishes that the appellant stopped reporting for duties having last worked on 15.03.1992. Thus the question of violation of Section 25-G does not arise. 7. The appeal is dismissed.