Voluntary abandonment of service and gainful employment elsewhere preclude claims for reinstatement and back wages.

The respondent-employee worked as a fitter for the petitioner from 1995 until December 1998

The employee alleged he was terminated without due process, leading to a Labour Court reference where he was awarded reinstatement with 40% back wages in 2007

The employer challenged this award, contending that the employee had actually abandoned his duty, failed to return despite multiple invitations to resume work post-award, and had secured gainful employment elsewhere in Rajasthan

1. Whether the respondent-employee’s services were illegally terminated or if he abandoned his employment of his own volition

2. Whether the Labour Court’s finding of illegal termination was sustainable given the evidence of subsequent gainful employment and refusal to resume duty

The Court applied the principles of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the necessity of a domestic inquiry for absenteeism, but balanced this against the doctrine of "abandonment of service"

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the Labour Court's findings

The Court also relied on the principle that if a workman is gainfully employed elsewhere and demonstrates a clear lack of intention to return, relief of reinstatement can be substituted with lump-sum compensation

The Court found the Labour Court's conclusion of "illegal termination" to be perverse and contrary to the record

Specifically, the employee admitted in cross-examination that he was never stopped from working and had not attempted to report for duty after the alleged termination date

Evidence also showed that the employer sent three separate letters in 2008 inviting the employee to resume his duties, which he ignored

Furthermore, an investigative report confirmed the respondent was working as an electrician-cum-fitter in Jaipur

The High Court reasoned that the employee’s conduct—long-term absenteeism, joining another firm, and expressing a written desire to settle accounts rather than resume work—established a voluntary abandonment of service rather than a wrongful discharge

The Court ordered the petitioner to pay a lump-sum compensation of ₹2,00,000/- in lieu of all other benefits within six weeks