Prolonged unexplained absence amounted to abandonment, negating termination by refusal of employment.

The workman, Sukhdham Pandey, claimed that Kesoram Industries Limited (KIL) employed him from 1994 and refused him work on 30 May 2008.

KIL contended that he had worked in its Textile Division, transferred to Kesoram Textile Mills Limited (KTML) under a scheme of arrangement effective 1 June 1999, and resigned from KTML in 2005.

The workman disputed the transfer and resignation, relying, among other things, on an employment certificate identifying him as staff at KIL’s Calcutta Head Office, an identity card, inter-office correspondence, and provident-fund records.

The Government referred the dispute over the alleged refusal of employment to the Industrial Tribunal, which found the termination unjustified for non-compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. KIL challenged the award by writ petition.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s finding that KIL terminated the workman’s service by refusing him employment, in breach of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, was sustainable on the evidence

2. Whether the workman’s employment had transferred to KTML under the scheme of arrangement, such that the industrial dispute was required to be raised against KTML rather than KIL

Sections 391–394 of the Companies Act, 1956 provide for court-sanctioned arrangements or amalgamations; the scheme in this case provided for the transfer to KTML of KIL’s Textile Division and the employees engaged in that division.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires compliance with prescribed conditions before retrenchment; the Court held that the provision did not apply absent a termination by retrenchment.

Relying on Nagar Parishad Bilaspur v. Bone Ram and Another, (2005) II LLJ 123, the Court treated prolonged absence without leave or communication as capable of constituting abandonment of service, rather than retrenchment.

The Court considered the scheme’s definition of the Textile Division, the workman’s employment terms permitting service at company units, and his testimony that he had worked in other group companies, including KTML.

It found that the Tribunal had overlooked relevant evidence and that the record did not show the workman had approached KTML or the other units where he had worked after he was allegedly refused work at KIL’s head office.

The Court concluded that his conduct demonstrated abandonment of service and that there was no termination by retrenchment attracting Section 25F.

It also stated that the workman remained entitled to lawful benefits and dues for the period from 18 April 1994 to 30 May 2008.