The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has ruled that employees who remain absent from duty without valid reason or response to employer communications can be deemed to have voluntarily exited service - not terminated or retrenched. Justice Anil L Pansare delivered this ruling while hearing writ petitions filed by Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society (RTMTES) against orders passed by the Labour and Industrial courts. The employees - including Indira Madhukar Muraskar and others - had approached these forums after their names were removed from the muster roll following an extended unauthorised absence. In 1993, the employees went on strike, defying an Industrial Court order that had restrained them from engaging in unfair labour practices. Despite repeated notices and letters from the employer between September 1993 and April 1994, urging them to return to work, the employees failed to report back.

 

On June 1, 1994, the Society formally notified the employees that their continued absence would be treated as voluntary abandonment of service, and subsequently removed their names from the muster roll. However, the Labour Court later ruled in favour of the employees, holding the employer guilty of unfair labour practice and ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages, citing non-compliance with Sections 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, which deal with retrenchment procedures. The High Court, however, overturned these decisions. Justice Pansare observed that the facts of the case demonstrated a clear failure by the employees to respond to legitimate directions from the employer. The court highlighted that a nine-month-long absence, without any effort to rejoin duties or reply to the employer’s letters, could not be overlooked.

 

“The act of deleting names from the muster roll is not a direct termination but a consequence of the employees’ own conduct,” Justice Pansare said. He added that such conduct, when sustained over a long period, signals voluntary abandonment, not retrenchment - thereby negating the need for compliance with retrenchment procedures. Relying on key Supreme Court rulings including Sakattar Singh and Vijay Sathaye, the High Court reaffirmed that long, unauthorised absence creates a legal presumption of voluntary exit. In such cases, the requirement for a domestic inquiry or notice becomes “a useless formality.”

 

Significantly, the employees failed to prove their claim that they had tried to resume duties and were turned away. During cross-examination, they could not specify any dates of such attempts nor provide documentary proof. The High Court concluded that the Labour and Industrial Courts had failed to properly evaluate the evidence, and that their conclusions were “legally unsustainable.” The writ petitions filed by RTMTES were accordingly allowed, and the complaints filed by the employees were dismissed.