J U D G M E N T :

Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel Mr. H.V. Thakur waives service of Rule on behalf of employee and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. S.B. Bissa waives on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions are taken up for final hearing.

The issue involved in these petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being decided by common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties chose to refer to facts of Writ Petition No. 715/2019.

Having heard both sides and having gone through the material placed before me, the following question arises for consideration:

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the removal of names of respondents-employees from muster roll by the petitioner–employer amounts to termination/retrenchment of services of the respondents-employees?”

The employees were appointed as Assistant Cook, Clerk, Accountant, Librarian, Caretaker, etc. during the period from the year 1991-1993 by following due process of law. These employees issued strike out notice in August, 1993. The petitioner challenged the notice before the Industrial Court, and vide order dated 12/11/1993, interim relief was granted. The strikeout notice was treated unfair practice and employees were directed to desist from the same. The employees, however, did not resume services. The petitioner then issued letter to the employees requesting them to resume services. The letters were so issued on 15/09/1993, 26/11/1993, 05/01/1994, 15/03/1994 and 02/04/1994 (Exh.58/1 to Exh.58/5). Since, the employees did not resume services, the petitioner on 01/06/1994 (Exh.60) informed them that from August, 1993, they remained absent without notice and have not resumed services despite request letters issued by the petitioner and issued clear warning that if they fail to resume services, it will be presumed that they have voluntarily relieved themselves from the services. They were called upon to show cause why should they be not relieved from services, but they chose to give no cause nor to resume duty. Accordingly, the petitioner presumed that the employees have voluntarily relieved themselves with effect from 01/06/1994 and consequently their names were deleted from the muster.

The employees then allegedly approached the petitioner, who allegedly refused to permit them to resume services. The employees lodged complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, where the petitioner informed the Commissioner that their services were already terminated. Thereafter, the employees lodged complaint before the Labour Court, Nagpur, which vide impugned judgment, set aside the order of termination for non-compliance of provisions under Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, while rendering such a finding, referred to cross-examination of the respondent-employee. The attention of the employee was drawn to the aforesaid letters (Exh.58/1 to Exh.58/5). The employee admitted that the name and address mentioned in the said letters was correct. The postal receipts were shown. The employee admitted that the name and address on the said postal receipts was also correct. Thereafter, the employee was shown letter dated 01/06/1994 (Exh.60). She admitted that the postal acknowledgment bears her signature (Exh.61).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices (Exh.58/1 to Exh.58/5), were sent under postal certificate, thus, carrying a presumption that it would be delivered to addressee if the name and address is correctly mentioned. Despite such status, the Labour Court noted that in the cross-examination, the employee denied having received letter sent by the petitioner to resume duty. The Counsel submits that this finding is contrary to the evidence led before the Labour Court.

I have, with the assistance of both the sides, gone through the cross-examination to find substance in the