Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for L&T Komatsu Ltd. VS N. Udayakumar...

Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS C. Satpal Singh...

Checking relevance for Managing Director Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. VS Amit Kumar Sinha, S/o. Manoj Kumar Sinha...

Managing Director Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. VS Amit Kumar Sinha, S/o. Manoj Kumar Sinha - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 139 : In cases of long absenteeism without information, the employer may initiate a departmental inquiry. If the worker is found guilty of habitual or prolonged unauthorized absence, dismissal from service may be upheld as a proportionate punishment, especially when the absence spans several months. The Supreme Court in L&T Komatsu Ltd vs. N. Udayakumar [(2008) 1 SCC 224] held that habitual absenteeism amounts to a gross violation of discipline, and dismissal is not liable to be interfered with by a court if it does not shock the conscience. The employer has discretion in determining the quantum of punishment, provided it is proportionate to the misconduct. The procedure thus involves a departmental inquiry, finding of guilt, and imposition of punishment such as removal from service, which may be reviewed by appellate authorities but not overturned unless manifestly disproportionate.Checking relevance for ABP Pvt. Ltd. VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for A. S. Anandrayan Samuel VS Deena Bank...

A. S. Anandrayan Samuel VS Deena Bank - 2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 548 : In cases of long absenteeism without information or justification, the employer or disciplinary authority must establish that the worker remained absent without making any application for leave on medical or any other ground, and that the worker failed to furnish a valid reason for the absence. The worker''''s failure to apply for leave or submit a medical certificate, especially when transfer was voluntary and no impediment existed to seeking leave, supports the imposition of disciplinary action. Courts will not interfere with the punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate, illogical, or violates procedural fairness or moral standards. The burden lies on the worker to explain the absence, and in the absence of such explanation, dismissal may be upheld. The disciplinary process must be fair, but the court''''s role is limited to reviewing procedural defects or gross disproportionality, not substituting its judgment for that of the employer.Checking relevance for RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE VS P. O. , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE...

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BANGALORE VS P. O. , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE - 2005 0 Supreme(Kar) 64 : In cases of long absenteeism without information, the employer may justify dismissal if the absenteeism is habitual and chronic, even after multiple opportunities and leniency from management. The application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (which allows for reinstatement without back wages) is considered misplaced sympathy when the employee''''s conduct demonstrates persistent and unjustified absence, particularly where there is no satisfactory explanation. The court emphasized that shockingly disproportionate punishment is not required, and termination is justified when the absence is prolonged and unexplained, especially when the employee has been given repeated chances to improve attendance.Checking relevance for Uday Kumar Hebbal S/o Vittala VS Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority, Puttur...

Uday Kumar Hebbal S/o Vittala VS Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority, Puttur - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1707 : Under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in cases of long absenteeism without information, the Labour Court has the power to modify the punishment imposed by the employer. In this case, the worker was absent without leave for 102 days, and despite prior minor punishments for similar misconduct, the Labour Court confirmed dismissal. However, the appellate court modified the punishment to ''''compulsory retirement'''' instead of dismissal, considering the worker''''s long service and the disproportionate nature of the punishment. This indicates that the procedure involves: (1) initiation of disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence; (2) consideration of past history of absenteeism; (3) assessment of the gravity of misconduct and proportionality of punishment; and (4) the power of the Labour Court under Section 11-A to modify the punishment to a less severe one, such as compulsory retirement, especially when the worker has substantial service and the punishment is deemed disproportionate.Checking relevance for Dushyant Janbandhu VS Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd. ...

Checking relevance for Bata India Limited VS Workmen of Bata India Limited...

Checking relevance for Anwarbhashasab S/o. Mardansab Saragi VS Divisional Controller, NEKRTC...

Anwarbhashasab S/o. Mardansab Saragi VS Divisional Controller, NEKRTC - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 271 : In cases of long absenteeism without information, the employer must follow a fair and lawful inquiry procedure in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This includes serving the employee with a call notice, charge memo, and enquiry notices in a proper and verifiable manner. The employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the charges, present evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. Failure to serve these documents or to provide a proper opportunity to defend oneself renders the inquiry defective and invalid. The employer cannot rely on the employee''''s absence from the inquiry as proof of misconduct. Additionally, any past record of absenteeism used to justify punishment must be specifically charged and communicated to the employee during the inquiry process, and the employee must be given a chance to respond to it. The employer must also prove that the employee was not gainfully employed during the period of absence, as failure to do so entitles the employee to full back wages and consequential benefits upon reinstatement.

• Procedure for Long Absenteeism Without Worker Information -Main Points & Insights:
• Long absence due to medical reasons may not be deemed misconduct; if the absence is for an extended period, it can amount to voluntary abandonment, leading to automatic termination without employer's order (e.g., Indian Airlines case) ["State Of Gujarat vs Mansukhbhai Purshottambhai Vaghela - Gujarat"].
• Absenteeism without prior approval is considered serious misconduct, especially if it exceeds permissible limits or is unexcused, warranting disciplinary action or dismissal (e.g., Central Sugars, Perusahaan Otomobil National) ["MOHD NAJIB JAMALUDIN vs TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD - Industrial Court Penang"], ["DON CLAUDINE PEREIRA vs OIB MARKETING SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"].
• Repeated absence without leave, especially after warnings or advisories, can justify termination, even in the absence of a domestic inquiry, provided the employer follows lawful procedures and the employee does not produce justifications ["DON CLAUDINE PEREIRA vs OIB MARKETING SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["Nijam Mohamad Mulani VS Transport Manager, Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan - Bombay"].
• Employers are required to issue show cause notices and provide opportunity for explanation before disciplinary action, but failure to do so does not invalidate the action if the employee's absence is clearly unauthorized and unjustified ["DON CLAUDINE PEREIRA vs OIB MARKETING SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["Nijam Mohamad Mulani VS Transport Manager, Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan - Bombay"].
• Absenteeism lasting more than ten days without satisfactory cause can constitute misconduct under standing orders, leading to disciplinary measures ["C.AMIRTHALINGAM vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF MANAGER/ - Madras"].
• Consistent absenteeism, habitually without leave or valid reason, can result in summary dismissal, especially when it disrupts productivity and organizational harmony ["AHMAD SANI ISMAIL vs TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["AHMAD SANI ISMAIL vs TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["SIVANESAN DURAIRAJAH vs AEGIS BPO MALAYSIA SDN BHD - Industrial Court Malaya Johor Bahru"].

• The effects of absenteeism are significant, including reduced productivity and disharmony; thus, organizations adopt strict procedures to address unauthorized absence ["SIVANESAN DURAIRAJAH vs AEGIS BPO MALAYSIA SDN BHD - Industrial Court Malaya Johor Bahru"].

• Analysis and Conclusion:Employers should follow a clear, lawful procedure when dealing with long absenteeism without employee information:

• Initial Warnings & Notices: Issue warnings or show cause notices to the employee, requesting explanations for the absence.
• Documentation & Evidence: Maintain records such as communication logs, warnings, and any notices sent to substantiate the case.
• Opportunity for Explanation: Provide the worker an opportunity to justify the absence, especially if the absence is prolonged or recurrent.
• Assessment of Justification: Evaluate whether the absence was justified (e.g., medical reasons) or unjustified.
• Disciplinary Action: If the absence is unjustified and exceeds permissible limits, proceed with disciplinary measures, including termination, ensuring procedural fairness.
• Automatic Termination in Certain Cases: Recognize that prolonged absence without communication may lead to automatic abandonment and termination, but this should be consistent with legal rulings and organizational policies.

References:- Indian Airlines Ltd. (2013) SCC 253- Central Sugars, Perusahaan Otomobil National cases MELRU 1008, ["617"]- Various court rulings on misconduct due to absenteeism ["MOHD NAJIB JAMALUDIN vs TENAGA NASIONAL BERHAD - Industrial Court Penang"], ["Nijam Mohamad Mulani VS Transport Manager, Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan - Bombay"], ["DON CLAUDINE PEREIRA vs OIB MARKETING SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["AHMAD SANI ISMAIL vs TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["AHMAD SANI ISMAIL vs TEGAS LOGISTIK SDN BHD - Industrial Court Kuala Lumpur"], ["SIVANESAN DURAIRAJAH vs AEGIS BPO MALAYSIA SDN BHD - Industrial Court Malaya Johor Bahru"]