Failure to join a valid transfer for years constitutes abandonment, not refusal of employment.

The petitioner challenged awards dated 18 March 2025 in five applications under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by which the Second Labour Court found that the workmen had been refused employment and granted reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits

The petitioner’s case was that the workmen had faced disciplinary proceedings, were transferred to the company’s Ghaziabad unit in 2014 instead of being dismissed, and did not report there; one workman was dismissed in 2022, an order not challenged in these proceedings

The Labour Court had found no domestic enquiry or transfer order on record and inferred refusal of employment from the surrounding circumstances

1. Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the workmen had been refused employment was perverse because it failed to consider the disciplinary and transfer documents on record

2. Whether an application under Section 2A(2) was maintainable where the workman had been transferred, had not joined the new posting, and the later dismissal order was not under challenge

Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits a workman to apply directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal after the prescribed conciliation period, but the dispute must fall within Section 2A(1)—that is, it must concern the workman’s discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or other termination of service

In writ review, a tribunal’s finding may be interfered with where it is perverse or reflects a failure to consider material evidence; *Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan* was cited for the limits on reappraising factual findings in writ proceedings

The Court also relied on *Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Prakash*

The judgment cited *Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Biswanath Mukherjee* on natural-justice issues, but did not develop that principle in its reasoning.

The Court found that the Labour Court’s conclusion rested on an erroneous view of the record: the charge-sheet and suspension order and the transfer order were before it, contrary to its finding that no domestic enquiry or transfer had occurred

The workman had not joined the transferred posting, and the Court found no refusal of employment by the company; it treated the prolonged failure to join as abandonment of service

Because the later dismissal order was not under challenge, the Court held that the awards could not stand on the basis of the alleged earlier refusal of employment

It quashed and set aside the impugned awards and allowed WPA 22987 of 2025, WPA 26230 of 2025, WPA 28006 of 2025, WPA 28011 of 2025 and WPA 29815 of 2025; connected applications were disposed of and any interim orders were vacated