Absence due to medical incapacity is not abandonment; termination without inquiry constitutes illegal retrenchment.

The Petitioner, employed as a Rula Mistry since 1998, suffered an industrial accident in 2002 involving a steel blade penetrating his hand and spine

Following hospitalization in March 2007, he reported for duty on 09.03.2007 but was allegedly refused reinstatement and terminated without notice

The Management claimed the Petitioner abandoned his service effective 29.01.2007

The Labour Court, via an Award dated 17.02.2011, upheld the Management's plea of abandonment and denied relief

During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the workman expired in 2022 and was substituted by his legal representatives

Notably, in parallel ESIC proceedings, the Management paid ₹15,000 as compensation for the accident, acknowledging the injury occurred during employment

The Court primarily applied the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, specifically Section 2(k) defining "industrial dispute" [para. 32], Section 2A deeming individual discharge/dismissal as an industrial dispute [para. 34], and Section 2(oo) defining "retrenchment" as termination for any reason other than punishment [para. 41].

It relied on the principle that abandonment must be intentional and proved by the employer through cogent evidence, typically requiring a domestic inquiry

Regarding relief, the Court followed B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal (2014) and Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing (2009), which establish that reinstatement is not automatic and monetary compensation may be preferred

It further applied the compensation quantum parameters set in Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. (2025), mandating that compensation must bear a nexus to the length of service

The Court found the Labour Court's finding of "abandonment" perverse and unsupported by evidence.

It noted that the Management failed to prove the service of call-back letters, whereas the workman proved his protest against termination via registered post

The Court observed that the Management's offer to take the workman back during proceedings contradicted the plea of abandonment

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the workman's absence was medically justified by the "foreign object" (steel blade) remaining in his body, a fact corroborated by medical records and the Management’s payment of accident compensation

The Court held that refusal to allow the workman to resume duties constituted oral termination, which, in the absence of a notice, pay in lieu, or a domestic inquiry, was a patent violation of Section 25F of the Act

However, noting the lapse of 19 years since termination and the death of the workman in 2022, the Court ruled that reinstatement was impractical

Applying the "pro-rata per year of service" principle from Amit Kumar Dubey, the Court directed the Respondent/Management to pay a consolidated compensation of ₹20,00,000 (Twenty Lakhs) to the Petitioner’s legal representatives within six months

Failure to pay within the stipulated time attracts interest at 9% per annum from the date of default