Termination without inquiry despite knowledge of medical leave constitutes illegal retrenchment requiring reinstatement.

The respondent-workman was appointed as a daily wager (sweeper) in 1986 and was later granted fixed pay as a permanent employee after five years.

The State alleged the workman abandoned his service in 1993 and failed to report for duty despite notices.

The workman contended he suffered from tuberculosis and a brain injury, necessitating intermittent and long leaves, for which he submitted medical reports in 2004 and requested medical leave without pay from 1996 to 2004.

The Labour Court found the termination was not preceded by an inquiry and directed reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages.

The State challenged this before a learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award.

1. Whether the workman’s absence from duty constituted "abandonment of service" or was justified by medical grounds

2. Whether the termination of the workman without an inquiry was valid, given his status as a permanent employee

3. Whether the State could characterize the termination as being on the ground of "continued ill-health" under Section 2(oo)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act

Principles of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 2(oo)(c) regarding retrenchment exceptions for continued ill-health.

Requirement of holding a formal inquiry before terminating a permanent employee for unauthorized absence.

Section 17B, which mandates the payment of last drawn wages to a workman during the pendency of proceedings in higher courts.

The Court observed that the workman’s medical evidence regarding tuberculosis and brain injury was credible and remained unchallenged during cross-examination.

Because the workman had sought medical leave and his health issues were proven, the State’s plea of voluntary "abandonment" was legally unsustainable.

The Court further noted that since the workman was a permanent employee, he could not be terminated by mere letters calling him to duty; an inquiry was a prerequisite for a valid termination.

Regarding Section 2(oo)(c), the Court held that the State failed to establish that the workman’s ill-health permanently affected the discharge of his duties to justify termination under that clause.

The Court noted that the workman, now aged 66, had already been receiving Section 17B benefits since 2015, making further litigation superfluous.

The Court held that the findings of fact regarding the workman’s illness and the lack of a proper termination inquiry barred the State from denying him employment.

All pending applications were consigned to records, and the State’s oral request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.