Job abandonment cannot be inferred where attendance records rebut the employer’s plea and it leads no evidence.

Fourteen workmen challenged a Labour Court award dismissing their claims that M/s S.N.E. India Pvt. Ltd. had illegally terminated their services.

They alleged long and continuous service, followed by termination on 23 November 2011 without notice or compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The management denied terminating them, asserting that they had abandoned their jobs from 1 June 2011; it later also pleaded that its Mayapuri premises had closed from 1 December 2011.

The Labour Court accepted the management’s position, relying in part on the absence of written termination letters and the workmen’s failure to seek alternative employment.

The management led no evidence before the Labour Court.

In the writ petition, counsel stated that the workmen had crossed the age of superannuation, making reinstatement impracticable.

1. Whether the Labour Court’s findings that the workmen abandoned their employment and were not illegally terminated were sustainable on the record

2. Whether, given the illegality of termination and the workmen’s superannuation, compensation rather than reinstatement was appropriate relief

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, judicial review of a Labour Court award is not an appeal; intervention is warranted where the decision is without jurisdiction, perverse, or contrary to natural justice, as stated in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union, and Ritz Theatre Private Limited v. Ramesh Chandra.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act requires compliance with prescribed notice and retrenchment-compensation requirements before retrenchment.

Reinstatement with back wages does not follow automatically from a Section 25F violation; compensation may be appropriate depending on the circumstances, under Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal.

The workmen produced employment records, including ESIC cards, leave books, PF statements, attendance cards, and management documents recording service continuity.

Their attendance records showed work through 22 November 2011, contradicting the management’s plea that they had abandoned their jobs from 1 June 2011.

The management, despite bearing the burden on abandonment and closure, produced no evidence, call-back notice, or communication asking the workmen to return.

The Labour Court therefore erred in inferring abandonment from the absence of written termination letters or applications for alternative employment; its findings were contrary to the record and could not stand in writ review.

The Court held the termination in violation of Section 25F.

Given the passage of nearly fifteen years, the stated closure of the premises, and the workmen’s superannuation, compensation was more appropriate than reinstatement.

It directed the management to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 each to Ganga Sagar’s legal representative and six other named workmen; Rs. 5,00,000 each to six named workmen; and Rs. 4,00,000 to Om Prakash, within eight weeks.

Unpaid amounts would carry simple interest at 9% per annum from the judgment date until realization.