Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Anil L. Pansare, J., quashed and set aside Industrial Court orders that had directed reinstatement and back wages for several employees who had stayed away from duty without authorisation. The Court held that prolonged unauthorised absence from work, despite multiple opportunities to resume duty, amounted to voluntary abandonment of service and did not constitute termination/retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act).
Background:
In the present case, employees working at a residential school for specially-abled children, operated by the petitioner-Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society, were appointed as assistant cook, clerk, accountant, caretakers, and librarians and in 1993, issued a strike out notice alleging that they were appointed by the petitioner by taking some amount of money and though their appointment was made on fixed pay scale, they were paid less. The Industrial Court, however, found the strike out notice to be an unfair practice and were directed to desist from the same. The petitioner, thereafter, issued letter requesting the employees to resume their duties.
Despite this, the employees did not report back to work. The management issued several reminders over 1993 and 1994, but the employees remained absent. Eventually, the petitioner issued a warning letter stating that continued absence would be treated as voluntary abandonment of service. With no response from the employees, their names were removed from the muster roll. Subsequently, when the employees attempted to return, they claimed they were being prevented from rejoining. This led them to file complaints before the Labour Court, which set aside the order of termination for non-compliance of provisions under Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act.
The employees contended that their removal from the muster roll constituted a termination under Section 2(oo) of the Act, qualifying as ‘retrenchment’. They further argued that the employer failed to comply with mandatory retrenchment procedures outlined under Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act, and that since no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, they were entitled to be reinstated along with back wages.
In contrast, the employer submitted that the workers had remained absent for more that nine months despite repeated notices and reminders. They maintained that such conduct reflected voluntary abandonment of employment, not termination. The employer argued that no formal enquiry is required when the circumstances clearly indicate abandonment.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court, after noting that the employees were appointed by paying certain amount, opined that since they bribed for seeking appointment, their appointment could not be said to be an appointment by following dure process of law.
The Court observed that the employees had ignored multiple communications from the employer urging them to return to duty. Moreover, there was no evidence that any of the employees made a genuine attempt to report back. The Court highlighted that the prolonged absence severely impacted the functioning of the residential school, which catered to the differently-abled children and that such absenteeism disrupted essential services. Thus, the Court, after considering the nature of service and after noting that the action of employees to go on strike was faulted with by the Industrial Court, stated that the employees ought to have resumed duties immediately.The Court opined that the act of the employees, was not only abandonment of service but would amount to seeking voluntary retirement. The Court emphasised that striking out an employee’s name from the muster roll in such circumstances, would be an act of a consequential nature as it could not be expected that the employer would indefinitely wait for the employees to resume services.
Relying on Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sakattar Singh, (2001) 1 SCC 214, and Sukhdev Singh v. DDA, , the Court opined that long-standing unauthorised absence would enable the employer to draw an inference that the workman had no intention to resume duty, unless the workman proved otherwise and once long standing unauthorised absence of the employee was established, failure to hold domestic enquiry would not prevent the employer from establishing misconduct before the Industrial Adjudicator.
Further relying on Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 253, the Court underlined that employees had the right to walk away from their jobs and in such cases, the employer was not obligated to conduct an enquiry or issue termination notices.
Setting aside the Industrial Court’s and Labour Court’s decisions, the Court opined that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence by which the petitioner clearly established that the employees abandoned the work by choosing not to resume duties despite repeated calls by the petitioner and thus such an act might be termed as voluntarily resignation of the employees. Further, the Courts below committed error of law by not examining the issue of misconduct and proof during trial.
concluded that the employer had not terminated the employees but had appropriately treated their conduct as voluntary abandonment. The Court held that retrenchment provisions of the Act were not attracted and the writ petitions filed by the employer were allowed.
[Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society v. Indira Madhukar Muraskar, 2025 SCC Online Bom 2055, decided on 9-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate
For the Respondents: H.V. Thakur, Advocate, for Respondent 1; S.B. Bissa, A.G.P, for Respondent 2
