Failure to resume duty after notice, without proving refusal of employment, amounted to abandonment of service.

The deceased workman, Md. Azam, claimed that he had worked for the petitioner jute mill since 1980 and that, after recovering from illness, he reported for duty on 3 July 2007 with a fitness certificate but was offered work only on “half pay” and on a voucher basis.

The management maintained that he was a casual badli worker who had been absent since 2006, and that it had sent him a notice on 14 August 2007 directing him to report for duty.

The workman raised an industrial dispute in 2011, alleging refusal of employment from July 2007.

The Industrial Tribunal held the termination by refusal of employment unjustified and awarded the workman’s legal heirs full back wages and consequential benefits from 3 July 2007 until his death on 26 November 2020, together with compensation.

The employer challenged that award by writ petition.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the workman’s service was terminated by refusal of employment from July 2007 was sustainable on the evidence.

2. Whether the workman’s failure to report for duty, despite receiving the management’s notice, established abandonment of service and displaced the Tribunal’s award of back wages and other relief.

The Court applied the principle that a finding or award must be supported by a proper appreciation of the evidence on record; it treated the evidence of a direction to report for duty, received by the workman, followed by his failure to join, as relevant to determining whether employment had been refused or service abandoned.

The petitioner cited Nagar Parishad Bilaspur v. Bone Ram and Another, (2005) II LLJ 123, concerning prolonged unexplained absence and abandonment, while the respondents cited Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, 2014-IV-LLJ-171 (SC).

The judgment does not expressly set out or apply a statutory provision, or explain its adoption of either cited precedent.

The Court found that the management’s letter dated 14 August 2007 and its acknowledgement card showed that the workman had been asked to report for duty and had received the notice.

It considered his claim that he was offered only half pay unsupported by evidence, noting that he did not join and therefore could not substantiate that claim through the salary or voucher records.

The Court also relied on the delay of nearly five years before the workman raised the dispute and found no evidence establishing that he was a permanent employee.

On those facts, it concluded that refusal of employment had not been proved and that the workman had abandoned service; the Tribunal’s contrary award was therefore perverse and erroneous.

It directed that the deceased workman’s legal heirs be paid the benefits or dues to which he was entitled as a badli worker for the period from 1980 to 2007, within three months.

No back wages or consequential benefits for the period after 2007 were upheld.