Point of Law : Upholding the validity of the action of the Bank in applying the clause 16 of the bipartite statement by noticing the employee and not holding regular departmental enquiry, the position of law was propounded.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the impugned award dated 16.01.2019 the labour court has allowed the industrial reference in favour of the workman by holding that the termination of the respondent workman's services on 08.09.2011 were illegal. Consequential reliefs of reinstatement with full backwages have also been granted.

2. The labour court in the impugned award has found that the services of respondent workman were terminated without holding a disciplinary enquiry. Various communications sent by the employer to the workman to rejoin duties were disbelieved on the foot that they do not reflect a bona fide intent to recall the workman to duty.

3. Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence in the record established that the workman was given ample opportunity to rejoin his duties but he failed to do so. The workman had abandoned his service. Petitioner had rightly invoked the applicable standing order holding the field which was not considered by the labour court. No departmental enquiry was liable to held in the facts of this case and the relevant standing orders. The labour court returned perverse findings on the evidence lead by the petitioner.

4. Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent workman contends that the services of the workman were terminated without enquiry. The respondent workman had not abandoned his service. He made several efforts to rejoin his duties but was not allowed to do so by the employer. The termination of the respondent workman was in violation of principles of natural justice was rightly set aside by the court below.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Briefly put the facts are these. The respondent workman had stopped attending office after an incident in the establishment. The employer sent communications asking the workman to rejoin duties, but to no avail. The petitioner employer inferred abandonment of duties by the workman and after invoking the relevant standing order struck him off the roles of employees.

7. The questions which arise for consideration are:

(a) What constitutes abandonment of service by a workman?

(b) Whether abandonment of service can be established against a workman only after holding a regular domestic enquiry?

8. Abandonment of service is an act where the employer finds that a workman by prolonged and unauthorized absence from duty has abandoned his service. The employer employee relationship stands severed since the workman has failed to rejoin duties despite communications by the employer to do so. The inference of the employer regarding abandonment of duty by the employee has to be deduced from the conduct of the employee and requires to be supported by credible materials in the record.

9. The prerequisite conditions for drawing an inference that the workman has abandoned his duties are these. The workman is continuously and unauthorizedly absent from duties. The period of continuous absence may vary from case to case. However it cannot be an inordinately short period. The period of such absence may also be prescribed in the standing order. Secondly the employer should recall the workman and give him an opportunity to resume his duties. Even after receipt of such communications the workman fails to rejoin duties. Thirdly, continuance of such employee on the rolls would not be in the best interest of the establishment. Upon satisfaction of the said conditions precedent the employer may conclude that the employee has abandoned his duties. The employer can then strike the employee off the roles of the establishment and sever the employer employee relationship. In such cases a regular domestic enquiry is not required. However, there is no abandonment of duties if the workman was prevented by the employer from joining his duties.

10. It needs to be seen whether in the facts of this case the aforesaid ingredients are established or not.

11. It is admitted between the parties that on 07.09.2011 the workman had an altercation with anothe