COURT’S DECISION
The Court held that the workman’s termination was illegal, unjustified, and based on fabricated documents, and therefore ordered his reinstatement with 20% back wages along with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The Court found that the employer had failed to discharge the burden of proving their allegations of long absences or misconduct and had instead relied on questionable, fabricated or inconsistent records.
The Labour Court concluded that the management acted arbitrarily, without inquiry, without issuing any notice, and in a manner contrary to established industrial jurisprudence.
FACTS
The workman was employed as a beldar (labourer) with a municipal authority and claimed to have worked continuously for several years. He asserted that he was deliberately targeted after refusing to comply with certain pressures from officers and was illegally terminated without notice in 2010.
He raised an industrial dispute. The government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman alleged that he had worked diligently until his sudden removal, and that the management forcefully obtained signatures on blank documents, later misused to show that he had “voluntarily abandoned service.” He denied the allegation of unauthorised absence and asserted that the management had deliberately manipulated attendance sheets.
The management contended that the workman remained absent for long periods, failed to report for duty despite repeated directions, and therefore abandoned service. They claimed they attempted to call him back but he never responded. They further relied on internal documents, muster rolls, and absenteeism records to justify the termination.
Evidence was led through affidavits, witnesses, service records, and multiple documents including letters allegedly sent to the workman.
ISSUES
- Whether the employer proved that the workman had abandoned service or remained absent without justification.
- Whether the termination was legal, valid, and in accordance with principles of natural justice.
- Whether the documents produced by the management were authentic, reliable, and sufficient to justify termination.
- Whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement, back wages, and continuity of service.
- Whether the employer discharged its statutory burden under the Industrial Disputes Act.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS (WORKMAN’S CASE)
The workman argued that he never abandoned service and had a spotless work record. He submitted that his signatures were taken under pressure on blank papers, later misused by the employer. He insisted that no notice, chargesheet, or inquiry was ever conducted, making the termination arbitrary and illegal. He also highlighted contradictions in the employer’s own muster rolls and absence registers, which indicated fabrication.
The workman further argued that the alleged letters issued by the management calling him back to duty were never served upon him. There was no postal proof, no personal service, and no acknowledgment. He demonstrated that the employer produced documents with differing handwriting and inconsistent attendance dates, exposing fabrication. He contended that the employer deliberately terminated him without following due process and later tried to justify it through afterthought documentation.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS (MANAGEMENT’S CASE)
The management claimed that the workman remained absent for long periods and wilfully abandoned service. They relied on several alleged notices; however, the notices were not supported by any postal receipts or any evidence of service. They asserted that the workman had signed certain letters acknowledging abandonment, but the Court found these signatures suspicious.
The employer argued that the municipal authority cannot retain a willfully absent employee, and termination was justified to maintain discipline. They relied on internal records, claimed compliance with internal rules, and asserted that reinstatement would be inequitable.
ANALYSIS OF THE LAW
The Labour Court emphasised that in cases of alleged abandonment, the burden lies entirely upon the employer to prove:
- genuine absence,
- service of notices,
- failure of the workman to respond, and
- compliance with principles of natural justice.
The Court noted that termination without inquiry is permissible only when voluntary abandonment is clearly established — which was not the case.
The management failed to prove service of any notice. The Court also stressed the legal principle that abandonment cannot be presumed merely because the employer alleges it; the burden must be proved with cogent, reliable, unimpeachable evidence.
The Court applied well-settled labour law doctrine that:
- long service cannot be discarded without procedural safeguards;
- fabrication of documents is fatal to the employer’s case;
- where two views are possible, the view favouring the workman prevails.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
The Court relied on established jurisprudence, including principles drawn from landmark judgments:
Principle: Abandonment Cannot Be Presumed
Courts consistently hold that abandonment must be intentional, proved by proper notice and inquiry.
Applied Here: The employer failed to prove abandonment; thus termination was illegal.
Principle: Termination Without Inquiry is Illegal
Unless misconduct is admitted, inquiry is mandatory.
Applied Here: No inquiry was held; hence termination violated natural justice.
Principle: Fake or Fabricated Records Vitiate Termination
When employer documents appear manipulated, the benefit must go to the workman.
Applied Here: Inconsistent muster rolls & unserved notices undermined employer’s case.
Principle: Reinstatement is Normal Relief
When termination is illegal, reinstatement with continuity is standard.
Applied Here: The Court awarded reinstatement with 20% back wages.
Even though specific Supreme Court citations are not explicitly mentioned by name in the judgment text, these are well-recognised labour law principles consistently applied.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court found that the employer’s documents were riddled with contradictions:
- Notices had no postal receipts.
- Attendance sheets contained mismatched handwriting.
- Muster rolls reflected inconsistencies suggesting interpolation.
- There was no evidence that any notice was ever served on the workman.
- The employer failed to produce any witness who actually served the letters.
The Court held that the alleged abandonment was not proved, and the termination was carried out without inquiry, without notice, and without compliance with statutory law.
The Court further held that had the employer truly wished the workman to resume duty, they would have issued chargesheets or conducted an inquiry — not produced doubtful documents later. The Court therefore declared the termination illegal and granted reinstatement with partial back wages.
CONCLUSION
The Labour Court directed:
Reinstatement of the workman
Continuity of service
20% back wages
All consequential benefits
The employer’s entire defence was rejected due to lack of proof, fabricated documentation, and violation of natural justice.
IMPLICATIONS
- Reinforces that public bodies cannot terminate workmen arbitrarily.
- Sends a strong message that fabricated records will not survive judicial scrutiny.
- Strengthens protections for labourers against misuse of administrative power.
- Highlights the importance of proper service of notices and conducting inquiries.
- Affirms reinstatement as the primary remedy for illegal termination.
FAQs
1. Can an employer terminate a workman for alleged abandonment without inquiry?
No. Abandonment must be proved with notices and inquiry; otherwise, termination is illegal.
2. What happens if the employer’s documents appear fabricated?
Courts reject such evidence and grant relief to the workman, often reinstatement.
3. Is reinstatement with back wages automatic in illegal termination cases?
Generally yes, unless exceptional circumstances exist; here 20% back wages were awarded.
