The Bombay High Court has affirmed that an employer’s failure to maintain statutory employment records and its silence in the face of alleged oral termination can validate a workman’s claim of illegal dismissal, even in the absence of a written order. This judgment reinforces the principle that industrial adjudication must prioritize substantive justice over rigid evidentiary formalities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the alleged oral termination of the respondent, Joginder R. Verma, as a Pattern Maker by Komal Fashion, a small garment establishment in Mumbai. The respondent claimed continuous service from October 2007 until 23 March 2010, when he was allegedly dismissed without notice, reason, or statutory dues. The petitioner denied any termination, asserting instead that the respondent voluntarily abandoned his service.
Key Facts
- The respondent was employed as a Pattern Maker from October 2007 to 23 March 2010.
- His last drawn wages were Rs. 17,200 per month.
- No appointment letter, pay-slips, attendance card, leave card, or service record was issued to him.
- The petitioner’s establishment employed more than 50 workmen and was covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Provident Fund Acts, yet statutory benefits were not extended to the respondent.
- The respondent was regularly required to work from 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., exceeding the statutory eight-hour limit under the Factories Act, 1948, without overtime compensation.
- The respondent made repeated oral requests for pay-slips, leave wages, and service documentation, all of which were ignored.
- On 17 May 2010, the respondent issued a demand letter seeking reinstatement and payment of lawful dues.
- On 25 May 2010, he filed a justification statement with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
- The Conciliation Officer filed a failure report on 10 June 2010, leading to the reference of the dispute before the Labour Court.
- The petitioner prepared a cheque for Rs. 18,313 as alleged dues on 28 March 2010, but the respondent refused it, contending it was inadequate and did not cover reinstatement or back wages.
- On 20 April 2010, the petitioner wrote to the Engineering and General Employees Union, stating the respondent had voluntarily left and was invited to resume duties.
- The respondent admitted receiving the 20 April 2010 letter but did not respond, citing lack of clarity and fear of retaliation.
- On 26 December 2016, CCTV footage showed the respondent entering the petitioner’s premises, sitting for 155 seconds, and leaving.
- The respondent claimed he remained unemployed since 23 March 2010, approached multiple employers (M/s. Alan Fashions, M/s. Bombay Rayon, M/s. Syndicate Overseas), and sought service certificates from the petitioner to secure alternative employment - all of which were denied.
Procedural History
- 23 March 2010: Alleged oral termination of respondent’s services.
- 17 May 2010: Demand letter issued by respondent seeking reinstatement and dues.
- 25 May 2010: Justification statement filed with Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
- 10 June 2010: Conciliation Officer filed failure report.
- 2014: Reference (IDA) No. 254 of 2014 filed before the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai.
- 10 December 2018: Labour Court awarded reinstatement with full back wages from 23 March 2010, and consequential benefits.
- 2019: Writ Petition No. 9909 of 2019 filed before the Bombay High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
- 9 April 2026: Judgment reserved.
- 16 April 2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Denied any termination; claimed respondent voluntarily abandoned service.
- Asserted that no written order was issued because no termination occurred.
- Highlighted preparation of cheque for Rs. 18,313 as proof of willingness to settle.
- Relied on the 20 April 2010 letter to the Union and CCTV footage from 2016 as evidence of abandonment.
- Argued that the reference was not maintainable under Satish Motors Limited.
For the Respondent
- Claimed illegal oral termination without notice, charge sheet, or domestic enquiry.
- Stated that no service records were ever provided, making documentary proof impossible.
- Contended that refusal to accept the cheque was not abandonment but a dispute over inadequate settlement.
- Asserted continuous unemployment and repeated attempts to seek reinstatement or service certificate.
- Cited Premsons Trading Private Limited to support entitlement to back wages.
Relief Sought
The respondent sought:
- Reinstatement to his original post as Pattern Maker with continuity of service.
- Full back wages from 23 March 2010 until actual reinstatement.
- Payment of all consequential benefits including provident fund, ESIC, overtime, and leave wages.
The petitioner sought quashing of the Labour Court’s award and dismissal of the reference as not maintainable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employer’s failure to maintain service records, absence of disciplinary action, and silence following alleged abandonment can negate a workman’s claim of illegal oral termination under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether refusal to accept a partial settlement amount constitutes voluntary abandonment.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Satish Motors Limited to argue that oral termination must be substantiated by the workman with concrete evidence. It contended that the respondent’s refusal to accept the cheque of Rs. 18,313, his failure to respond to the 20 April 2010 letter, and his brief visit to the premises in 2016 demonstrated voluntary abandonment. It further argued that the Labour Court erred in ignoring the absence of written termination and in granting full back wages for a three-year tenure.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent argued that the employer’s failure to issue appointment letters, pay-slips, or maintain records shifted the evidentiary burden. He relied on Premsons Trading Private Limited to assert that where an employer remains silent and takes no disciplinary action, the workman’s testimony of termination must be accepted. He emphasized that refusal to accept an inadequate settlement does not equate to abandonment, and that post-dispute conduct cannot validate prior illegal termination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the conduct of both parties, emphasizing that industrial disputes must be adjudicated with a realistic understanding of power imbalances and the typical absence of documentation in small establishments.
"In industrial jurisprudence, strict rules of evidence are not applied in the same manner as in civil suits. Many times in matters involving workmen engaged in smaller establishments, documentary evidence may not always be available with the employee, since such documents remain in custody of the employer."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on the cheque and the 2016 CCTV footage as conclusive evidence of abandonment. It held that preparation of a partial settlement amount does not imply cessation of employment, particularly when the workman disputes the legality of termination itself. The Court noted that the petitioner’s failure to issue any show cause notice, conduct a domestic enquiry, or maintain absenteeism records undermined its claim of voluntary abandonment.
"Silence on the part of employer weakens the plea of abandonment. The law does not encourage employers to rely upon oral assertions of abandonment without any action, particularly when the issue concerns cessation of livelihood of a workman."
The Court found the respondent’s consistent conduct - filing a demand notice, initiating conciliation, and repeatedly seeking reinstatement or a service certificate - to be inconsistent with abandonment. It held that a workman who believes he has been illegally terminated is not required to respond to every communication from the employer, especially when the employer has not provided any formal mechanism for redressal.
The Court also distinguished Satish Motors Limited, clarifying that while the burden lies initially on the workman to establish termination, the absence of employer records and inaction shifts the balance of probabilities in favour of the workman. The Labour Court’s conclusion was found to be based on a holistic appreciation of evidence, not mere speculation.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The judgment and award dated 10 December 2018 of the 3rd Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 254 of 2014, was confirmed. The petitioner was directed to implement the award - including reinstatement, full back wages from 23 March 2010, and consequential benefits - within twelve weeks. If not complied with, the monetary benefits shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date they became payable until realization. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Employer Silence Undermines Claims of Abandonment
- Practitioners must argue that failure to issue show cause notices, conduct domestic enquiries, or maintain attendance records fatally weakens an employer’s claim of voluntary abandonment.
- In small establishments, absence of documentation is not the workman’s burden - it is the employer’s failure to comply with statutory obligations.
Refusal of Partial Settlement ≠ Abandonment
- A workman’s refusal to accept a partial settlement amount cannot be construed as acquiescence in termination if the dispute concerns legality of termination, not merely quantum of dues.
- Legal notices and conciliation proceedings after refusal to accept payment affirm the workman’s intent to preserve employment rights.
Post-Dispute Conduct Cannot Validate Prior Illegality
- Letters inviting return to work issued after a dispute arises cannot retrospectively cure an illegal termination.
- CCTV footage or isolated visits years after termination are irrelevant to determining the nature of termination in 2010.
- Courts must assess conduct as a whole, not isolate single acts to justify dismissal of a workman’s claim.
Documentary Evidence Is Not Absolute in Labour Cases
- Where employers withhold records, courts must rely on broad probabilities, admissions, and surrounding conduct.
- Oral testimony of a workman, supported by consistent conduct, can outweigh the employer’s bald denials.
- This judgment reinforces that labour law prioritizes protection of livelihood over procedural technicalities.
