K.C. Sood, J.—This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award made by the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla on October 10, 2002 in Reference No. 12 of 1998.

2. The claim of the respondent No. 2, hereinafter referred to as the "workman", before the Labour Court was that she was engaged as unskilled Mazdoor on daily wages with effect from March 1, 1988. She worked for about two years in the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Department, though as Steno-typist, but then she was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer at Una where she worked in the same capacity till May 31, 1990 when her services were illegally terminated along with some other similarly situate workmen. According to the workman, the termination was challenged before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, and she was reinstated, by interim orders, in service. She joined back her duties on September 3, 1990. The proceedings were finally disposed of by the Tribunal on July 31, 1995 giving her benefit of continuity in service.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on July 1, 1993, she fell ill due to "depression of family circumstances" as a result of which she remained under treatment with Bagga Clinic, Phagwara (Punjab) from July 1, 1993 to October 21, 1995 and reported for duty to the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Department, Division No. 2 Una on October 25, 1995 along with medical fitness certificate. She was not allowed to join duties and was orally informed that her services stood terminated and she cannot be taken back without prior approval of the higher authorities. She kept on visiting the office but was not taken back in service. In these circumstances, she served a demand notice on July 16, 1996. Conciliation proceedings failed which resulted in the reference to the Labour Court.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that though she had put in more than 240 days of service during the preceding year of her illness, yet her services were terminated without any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry. She was not paid any retrenchment compensation though persons junior to her were retained in service. It is her case that the termination of her services violates Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act" for short). The petitioner claim reinstatement in service with all consequential service benefits including back wages.

5. The case of the present petitioner (Department for short) before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Beldar in the Department with effect from March 1, 1988. She worked as such till May, 1990 and she was disengaged with effect from June 1,1990 due to non-availability of work but the petitioner filed an application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and pursuant to the interim orders of the Tribunal, she was re-engaged with effect from September 3, 1990. She worked with the Department till June 30, 1993. On that date, she left the job voluntarily, without information to any official and despite two notices dated August 2, 1993 and August 17, 1993, she did not either joined the service or informed the Department about the cause of her absence. It is denied that she ever worked as Steno-typist during the period in question. It is stated that when the petitioner reported to the Department, the matter was referred to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and Public Health Department who advised that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner was not entitled to resume back the duties. It is the case of the Department that the workman left the job voluntarily and did not report for duty or otherwise informed about her illness in spite of two reminders and in these circumstances, there was no question of she having been issued a notice under Section 25-F or payment of any compensation to her.

6. Learned Labour Court took the view that th