Abandonment of Service Needs No Trial — Prolonged Absence Enough to Snap Employment Ties: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"No Enquiry Needed Where Employee Walks Away from Duties": Reinstatement of Bank Employee Quashed for Job Abandonment - In a significant pronouncement on the law of employment abandonment, the Punjab & Haryana High  ruled that prolonged and unexplained absence from duty, especially after overseas travel without valid permission, amounts to voluntary abandonment of service and not illegal termination. 

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, while allowing the petition filed by Punjab & Sind Bank, quashed the reinstatement order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which had earlier directed the bank to reinstate a long-absent employee. The court further held that no disciplinary enquiry is required in such cases and that the Labour Court’s reasoning was contrary to settled law. 

“The case of the workman is not of termination but of abandonment of service. Hence, no disciplinary proceedings were required, and the Labour Court’s conclusion is perverse,” observed the Court. 

The workman, Charanjit Singh, employed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier with Punjab & Sind Bank, went on ex-India leave in May 1990, which was valid only till 20 July 1990. However, he failed to return until December 1990. After a brief stint at work, he again remained frequently absent between January and March 1991. 

Despite multiple notices from the bank, he failed to rejoin duty. On 24 October 1991, the bank issued an order of termination citing abandonment of service. Charanjit Singh challenged this before the Labour Court, which held the termination illegal for lack of enquiry, directing reinstatement with continuity but without back wages. 

While the Bank filed CWP-8387-1999 challenging the reinstatement order, the workman filed CWP-11349-1999 seeking full back wages. 

Abandonment vs. Termination 

The Court noted that the central issue was whether the case involved termination by the employer or abandonment by the employee. 

“The workman’s conduct of overstaying leave, remaining absent repeatedly, and ignoring final notices clearly points to abandonment,” held the Court. 

The Bench underscored that employment is a two-way bond, and when one party — the employee — unilaterally breaks that link by disappearing, no enquiry is required. 

“A workman, who goes abroad without permission and fails to return despite multiple notices, forfeits the right to seek reinstatement on the ground of procedural lapse,” it said. 

“Not a Slave — An Employee Can Walk Away, But Cannot Demand Reinstatement” 

Relying on authoritative Supreme Court rulings including Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. and State of M.P. v. B.S. Bhadoriya, the High Court reiterated: 

“Absence from duty for long periods can be treated as voluntary abandonment. No positive act by the employer is needed to terminate such a service.” 

The judgment quotes extensively from Vijay S. Sathaye, where the Supreme Court said: 

“An employee has a right to abandon the service any time voluntarily… absence for a very long period may amount to voluntary abandonment of service… in that eventuality, bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer.” 

Labour Court's Finding Called 'Perverse to Settled Law' 

The High Court categorically rejected the Labour Court's conclusion that termination without a disciplinary enquiry was illegal, stating: 

“Treating this as a termination and not abandonment is contrary to settled law. The findings are perverse and cannot be sustained.” 

Citing precedents like Prem Nath v. United India Insurance Co. and State Bank of Patiala v. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja, the Court highlighted a consistent judicial approach in similar scenarios where employee disappearance led to legal disentitlement to reinstatement. 

Back Wages Denied: “No Entitlement When Reinstatement Itself is Invalid” 

With the reinstatement quashed, the Court held that the workman’s separate claim for back wages also stood dismissed: 

“Once the reinstatement is unsustainable, the claim for consequential benefits like back wages does not survive,” said the Bench, dismissing CWP-11349-1999 filed by the workman. 

A Cautionary Reminder for Employees Seeking to Exploit Procedural Gaps 

This judgment draws a firm line between absence due to miscommunication or technical lapse and complete withdrawal from duty without intent to return. It serves as a clear warning against using procedural arguments to reverse abandonment. 

“When an employee chooses to walk away from their duties, they cannot later seek refuge in the cloak of technical illegality to demand reinstatement,” summed up the Court’s view. 

The ruling reflects a realistic and employee-accountability-oriented approach in public sector service jurisprudence, balancing individual rights with institutional discipline. 

Date of Decision: 1st May 2025