A Labour Court’s abandonment finding cannot be reappreciated absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The workman was appointed as a Driver-cum-Field Worker on 4 January 2005 and alleged that the management illegally terminated his services on 23 May 2014; the management contended that he had stopped reporting for work and abandoned his employment.

The Labour Court found that the management had not established abandonment and awarded the workman ₹75,000 in compensation.

The management challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the Labour Court’s findings were contrary to the evidence.

1. Whether the management established that the workman voluntarily abandoned his employment, rather than having his services terminated.

2. Whether the Labour Court’s finding of illegal termination warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Under G.T. Lad & Ors. v. Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd., abandonment of service turns on the employee’s intention, which ordinarily cannot be inferred without adequate evidence and must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances.

Under Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not appellate; it does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for the fact-finder’s, absent perversity, patent illegality, or a finding unsupported by evidence.

The Labour Court’s finding that abandonment was not proved rested on the management’s failure to produce attendance records and its failure to produce the domestic-enquiry proceedings or examine the Enquiry Officers.

Applying G.T. Lad, the Court considered that the management had not supplied adequate evidence of the workman’s intention to abandon employment.

The management did not demonstrate that the Labour Court’s factual finding was perverse, unsupported by evidence, or affected by jurisdictional error; the High Court therefore declined to reassess the evidence under its supervisory jurisdiction.

It directed that the deposited ₹75,000 be released to the workman with accrued interest, if any; if the amount had not been deposited, the management was to pay it with accrued interest within four weeks.