A prolonged pattern of unauthorized absence can lead to an inference of voluntary abandonment of service without requiring a formal termination by the employer.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Deepak Aloria waives service of notice of Rule, on behalf on respondent No.1.

2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the award dated 09.07.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 82 of 2014, whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and to pay costs amounting to Rs.2,500/-.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was granted compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was employed as a Safai Kamdar in the Solid Waste Management Department. Pursuant thereto, the respondent was appointed on 01.10.2005 to the post of Safai Sahayak for a period of five years on an ad hoc basis, with a fixed remuneration of Rs.1,500/- per month. The terms of appointment stipulated that during the period of ad hoc service, his employment would be liable to termination without notice in the event of any irregularity being found in the discharge of his duties. It is submitted that the respondent exhibited irregularity and indiscipline in attending duties and in the performance of his assigned tasks. Consequently, notices were issued to him on 22.12.2009, 04.01.2010, and 25.07.2011. Despite such warnings, the respondent failed to improve his conduct and continued to remain undisciplined, insubordinate, and was frequently absent without authorization. In view of the aforesaid conduct, his services were terminated vide order dated 08.02.2012. Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent raised an industrial dispute, which culminated in Reference (L.C.R.) No. 82 of 2014 before the learned Labour Court, Rajkot, wherein he sought reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both parties, allowed the reference in favour of the respondent, thereby prompting the filing of the present writ petition.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Deepak Aloria for the respondent.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that at the time of offering employment to the respondent on compassionate grounds, several conditions were imposed, one of which clearly stipulated that if any misconduct were committed during the five-year ad hoc period, the services of the respondent could be terminated without holding any inquiry or issuing any notice. It is submitted that the respondent remained irregular in attendance and was unauthorizedly absent for prolonged periods. Despite being given several opportunities to improve his conduct, and notwithstanding the fact that he had submitted an undertaking not to remain absent without authorization, he continued to exhibit indiscipline. Consequently, his services were terminated by order dated 08.02.2012. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that the Labour Court erred in accepting the respondent's bare contention that his unauthorized absence was due to medical reasons, in the absence of any supporting medical certificate or documentary evidence. It is contended that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the various notices, reminders, and opportunities afforded to the respondent, and proceeded to grant relief in his favour without properly considering the petitioner's submissions. It is also submitted that the respondent’s repeated unauthorized absence caused serious administrative difficulties to the petitioner, adversely affecting public health services, particularly in the area of solid waste management. Therefore, the impug