Prolonged unexplained absence amounts to voluntary abandonment of service and does not constitute retrenchment.

The Petitioner was employed as a Salesman with the Respondent-Management.

He alleged that after sustaining injuries in an accident on 27.02.2020, he sought to resume duty on 25.04.2020, but was orally refused reinstatement on 25.08.2021

The Respondent contended that the Petitioner had taken several breaks in service and voluntarily abandoned his employment on 25.02.2020, only reappearing after a 1.5-year gap without a satisfactory explanation

The Labour Court, vide award dated 03.05.2024, rejected the Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and back wages, finding it a case of voluntary abandonment rather than illegal termination

The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court via a writ petition challenging the award.

1. Whether the Petitioner/workman had been absenting from his duties of his own volition, or whether his services were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the Management

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, full back wages, and consequential benefits

3. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, should interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court

definition of "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, noting that it requires a positive act of termination by the employer

Diamond Toys Company (P.) Ltd. v. Toofani Ram, which established that an employer is not obligated to conduct an enquiry if they do not intend to punish the workman but merely accept their voluntary abandonment

per Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Air Lines Ltd., prolonged absence amounts to voluntary abandonment, causing the contract of service to end automatically

principles from Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. v. Krishna Kant Pandey, which restrict the High Court from reappreciating evidence or disturbing factual findings under Article 226 unless the lower court's decision is perverse or lacks jurisdiction

The Court observed that the Labour Court’s findings were rooted in significant evidentiary contradictions in the Petitioner’s case.

Specifically, the Petitioner’s statement of claim alleged termination on 25.04.2020, whereas his demand notice and evidence affidavit cited 25.08.2021

Crucially, the Petitioner admitted during cross-examination that he did not visit the Management between February 2020 and August 2021, thus proving a continuous absence of 1.5 years without cogent explanation

The Management successfully demonstrated through muster rolls that the Petitioner's name was never struck off, indicating no "positive act" of termination by the employer

The Court reasoned that since the Management did not seek to punish the workman but treated the absence as abandonment, no domestic enquiry was legally required

Consequently, the High Court found that the Labour Court’s appraisal was reasoned and did not suffer from patent illegality

The Court affirmed that the absence of an industrial dispute regarding the alleged 2020 termination (due to the lack of a proper demand notice for that period) was a valid ground for dismissal

The Court concluded that it would not act as an appellate body to re-examine facts where the lower tribunal's findings were supported by the record

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly