The management must substantiate claims of abandonment with clear evidence, and failing to conduct a proper inquiry renders their decision legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

These Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.03.2023 in W.P.(C)

No.7103 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.14609 of 2013.

2. The subject matter of the W.P.(C) was the award dated

17.12.2012 of the Labour Court, Ernakulam, which declared the denial of employment to the workman by the management as illegal and non-justifiable and directed his reinstatement with 75% back wages and all consequential benefits. Both the workman and the management filed separate W.P.(C)s challenging the award. W.P. (C) No.7103 of 2013 was filed by the management challenging the award in toto and seeking to set aside the same. On the other hand, W.P.(C) No.14609 of 2013 was filed by the workman to the extent the award declined him 100% back wages.

3. The learned Single Judge vide the common judgment impugned herein disposed of both the W.P.(C)s, inter alia holding that the award of the Labour Court, ordering reinstatement of the workman, was perfectly legal and justified. As regards the question of disbursement of wages, the learned Single Judge held that, once the action of the management was found to be remiss in not taking steps by holding an enquiry, there should have been 100% back wages, as, for no fault of workman, he was made to suffer. The learned Single Judge thus modified the award of the Labour Court in terms of the back wages and directed that the management shall deduct the salary already paid under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , and the balance, along with all other benefits which the workman was entitled to, shall be paid to him within a period of 2 months. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the management, as well as the Chief General Manager, have, as stated above, preferred these Writ Appeals.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in overlooking the fact that the impugned award had been rendered by the Labour Court mechanically without analysing the true facts. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted, ought to have noted that the Labour Court had not considered the evidence to the effect that the transfer order had already been handed over to the workman directly and that he had refused to accept the same. The Labour Court ought to have noted that the workman had no case that the rejection of the leave application was intimated to the employees in writing. The Labour Court had also erred in concluding that no show-cause notice or termination notice was issued to the workman by the management/establishment for his unauthorised absence. Insofar as the case of the management/establishment is that the workman had not reported for duty even after his application was rejected, the management/establishment was entitled to presume his absence as abandonment of the job without notice. In such an event, the management/establishment was not legally bound to initiate disciplinary action against the workman, as the case was not at all about his unauthorised absence, which necessitated a domestic enquiry. The learned counsel contends that there had been no retrenchment and that even if the mandates of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been followed, the same cannot lead to a claim for reinstatement. The learned counsel elaborates on the difference between the retrenchment and voluntary retirement of the workman. According to the learned counsel for the management/establishment, notice is required only when a positive action is taken by the employer. When the employee himself abstains from work, there is no question of issuing a n