Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between New India Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the employer) and Shankar B. Bangera (the employee) regarding the employee's alleged voluntary abandonment of service. The employee joined the bank on 1 October 1985 and was posted at the Mulund branch. After a series of unauthorized absences in October and November 1992, the employee remained absent without leave or intimation from 2 December 1992 onwards. The employer sent multiple letters on 5 December 1992, 15 February 1993, 14 June 1993, and 26 June 1993, calling upon the employee to resume duty. The final notice, served by registered post, warned that failure to report would be treated as voluntary abandonment. The employee acknowledged receipt but did not resume work. Consequently, on 14 July 1993, the bank informed the employee that he was presumed to have voluntarily abandoned service and his name was struck off from the muster rolls. The employee then made a demand for reinstatement under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and filed an application under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act before the Labour Court on 7 February 1994. The employer filed a written statement and evidence was adduced. The legal issue was whether the employee's prolonged unauthorized absence constituted voluntary abandonment. The court held that the employee's failure to respond to multiple notices and his continued absence indicated an intention to abandon service, and the employer's action was justified. The judgment favored the employer.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Voluntary Abandonment - Unauthorized Absence - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Sections 42(4), 78, 79 - Employee remained absent without leave for extended periods despite multiple notices - Employer presumed voluntary abandonment and struck off name from muster rolls - Held that prolonged unauthorized absence without response to notices indicates intention to abandon service, and employer's action was justified (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employee's prolonged unauthorized absence without intimation amounts to voluntary abandonment of service, and whether the employer's action of striking off the employee's name from muster rolls was justified.
Final Decision
The court upheld the employer's action of striking off the employee's name from muster rolls, holding that the employee had voluntarily abandoned service.
Law Points
- Voluntary abandonment of service
- Unauthorized absence
- Burden of proof on employee to show no intention to abandon
- Section 42(4) Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- 1946
- Section 78 Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- Section 79 Bombay Industrial Relations Act
