The main legal point established in the judgment is that even in a case of abandonment of service, the employer has to give a notice to the employee to resume duty and hold an inquiry before terminating the services. Failure to do so may result in the employee being entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

1. Heard Shri S.P. Munj, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondent no.1.

2. It was the contention of Shri S.P. Munj that the Petitioner-Society was a non-commercial Society which was assailing the Award dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in favour of the Respondent no.1 holding that their action in terminating the Respondent no.1 was illegal and unjustified and ordering her re-instatement in service with full back wages and continuity in service alongwith all the other consequential benefits. The Respondent no.1 was an Accounts Assistant working with them w.e.f. 01.07.2000 and whose services came to be confirmed on the same day. The material question at large in this Petition was whether the Respondent no.1 was entitled to the back wages when she had absented herself and refused to join services. She had absented herself from duties on 12.05.2009 and lodged a police complaint on 14.07.2009. They had issued a letter to her dated 18.07.2009 to handover the keys on account of her absence from office. On 20.05.2009, she had complained to the Labour Commissioner that her services were terminated w.e.f. 12.05.2009 and a copy thereof was received by the Petitioners only on 08.07.2009. A letter was issued to her to explain her unauthorised absence from 11.05.2009.

3. Shri Munj further contended that a meeting was held on 01.02.2010 between their Management and the Respondent no.1 in the matter of the alleged illegal termination of services and as the proceedings before the Labour Commissioner had failed, the matter was then referred to the Industrial Tribunal. There was a specific averment in the Petition that the services of the Respondent no.1 were not terminated but that she had indulged in absentism. They had responded to her complaint dated 20.05.2009 made to the Labour Commissioner by their letter dated 22.01.2010 and in which they had made it abundantly clear that they had not appointed any new staff and that they were badly in need of staff and had requested the Respondent no.1 on several occasions to join her duty. The Respondent no.1 by her counter reply dated 01.02.2010 had maintained her case that her services were terminated and no question arose to rejoin the same and of keeping the post vacant and had sought for the payment of the entire compensation.

4. Shri S.P. Munj, learned Advocate for the Petitioners next adverted to the claim statement made by the Respondent no.1 before the Industrial Tribunal and their reply in which they had consistently taken a plea that they had not appointed any new staff in place of the Respondent no.1 and that they were in need of an Accounts Assistant and therefore her services were not terminated and quite on the contrary she had indulged in absentism. He relied in Sonal Garments vs. Trimbak Shankar Karve, (2002) 6 BomCR 529, VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. Balu Ganpat Sakpal, 2006 (6) AllMR 688 and in Madhuri Chandulal Lakhani vs. Prashant Shripad Satpute, 2015 LLR 239 apart from the unreported Judgment in Tantrik Shikshan Karmachari vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-Authority [Writ Petition no.3239 of 2015] to substantiate his case.

5. Shri J.J. Mulgaonkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1 adverted to the Award and the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and submitted that no notice was given to the Respondent no.1 to resume duty assuming without admitting that she had herself abandoned the services. He placed reliance in Gaurishanker Vishwakarma vs. Eagle Spring Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1987 (55) 689, Havaldar Tejbali Singh vs. Major Nachhattar Singh & anr., 1998 (1) LLJ 82, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & anr., (2005) 2 SCC 363 and Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324. He too adverted to the notice dated 26.05.2009 and the statement of claim to buttress his pleas that there was no basis in the ca