The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasonable consideration of all relevant factors, including gainful employment, before granting the relief of full backwages.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner-employer has assailed the award dated 12.10.2020, rendered by the labour court in Adjudication Case No.71 of 2002, Mauhar Singh Vs. M/s Gopal Soap Industries. In the impugned award, the labour court found that the termination of the respondent workman was illegal and held that the respondent workman was entitled to full backwages w.e.f. 12.07.2000 to July 2013. The relief of reinstatement was not been granted.

2. The respondent-workman has not filed a counter affidavit despite being granted time. Undisputed facts which are relevant for a just adjudication of the controversy can be prised out from the impugned award and admitted documents before this Court. Hence no useful purpose would be served by exchanging the pleadings and keeping this petition pending.The controversy relates to the year 2000. Matter has been pending since the year 2002 before the labour court. Interests of justice require that the controversy be settled without further delay.

3. Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner-employer contends that the workman had abandoned his duties. Despite intimations asking him to rejoin duties, he failed to do so. It is admitted that workman was gainfully employed after he severed his employment with the petitioner. Industrial establishment is lying closed since 2013.

4. Shri Akshat Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-workman contends that the respondent-workman had not abandoned his duties. He was always willing to join his duties but he was prevented to do so by the management. No domestic enquiry was conducted in the matter. The closure of the establishment from 2013 is undisputed. Further the fact of gainful employment of the workman during the period of termination could not be disputed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is established from the records that the industrial establishment had closed down in the year 2013. The labour court has declined to grant relief of reinstatement to the workman. The denial of reinstatement has not been challenged. The question which arises for consideration is whether the respondent-workman had abandoned his duties and the nature of relief to which he is entitled.

7. Abandonment of service in industrial jurisprudence happens when an employee remains unauthorizedly absent from duty and fails to turn up for duty despite intimations from the employer. Employer can then strike him off the roles of the establishment and end the employer employee relationship. Unauthorized absence from duty leads to decline in productivity, does not contribute to industrial peace and can legitimately even spark industrial unrest. The employer in such facts can infer that the employee has voluntarily severed the employer employee relationship by abandoning his duties.

8. A domestic enquiry in such cases is not required. The conditions precedent for inferring abandonment of service have to be satisfied and supported by reliable materials in the record.

9. Unauthorized absence from duty may be a misconduct warranting a domestic enquiry. If the employee rejoins duties after such absence, the employer can charge with the misconduct. The workman would then face domestic enquiry into the charge.

10. The specific case of the petitioner-employer before the labour court was that the respondent workman ceased to report for duty w.e.f. 12.07.2000. Despite repeated intimations requiring him to rejoin his duties, he failed to do so. The facts were pleaded in the written statement and also testified in the evidence tendered on behalf of the petitioner-employer.

11. The respondent-workman in his pleadings as well as in his deposition before the labour court states that the petitioner-employer did not permit him to join duties w.e.f 12.07.2000.

12. The categorical stand pleaded supported by credible evidence of the employer before the labour court was that the respondent-workman had remained unauthorizedly absence from duty. Despite repeated intimations recalling him