When an Employee Goes Abroad and Fails to Return, It Is Not Termination—It Is Abandonment of Service: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Absence from duty for a long period may amount to voluntarily abandoning service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end automatically”— In a crucial decision Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a bank employee who absented himself without sanctioned leave and failed to report back to duty after going abroad had abandoned his service, and no formal inquiry or retrenchment compensation was necessary. The case was titled Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Charanjit Singh.

The Court was hearing two connected writ petitions. The first, filed by the Bank, challenged the Labour Court’s direction to reinstate the employee. The second  was filed by the employee, Charanjit Singh, seeking back wages after reinstatement. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi allowed the Bank’s petition and dismissed the employee’s, setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court in 1999.

The case arose after Charanjit Singh, a Clerk-cum-Cashier at Punjab & Sind Bank, was granted ex-India leave up to 20 July 1990 but failed to return in time, coming back only on 6 December 1990. Even then, he continued to remain absent from work from February 1991 to September 1991, prompting the Bank to issue repeated notices. Ultimately, his services were dispensed with on 24 October 1991.

The Labour Court had held that since no departmental enquiry was conducted and retrenchment compensation was not paid, the termination was illegal. However, the High Court found that the workman had not been “terminated” in the legal sense.

Justice Sethi observed: “The respondent workman's intention was not to perform duty as he even left India for greener pastures in America.”

Referring to the prolonged and unexplained absence despite repeated opportunities to resume work, the Court ruled: “The said act of the workman does not fall under the category of termination by the employer but is a case of abandonment of service by the employee.”

The High Court emphasized that the legal distinction between abandonment and termination is vital, holding that: “An employee, who absents himself unauthorisedly despite repeated notices and warnings, and shows no inclination to resume work, cannot expect to be treated as a workman awaiting reinstatement.”

To support its findings, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. (2013), wherein it was held: “Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntarily abandoning service.”

The Court also referred to its earlier ruling in Prem Nath v. United India Insurance Co., 2012, where it held: “A workman cannot simply walk in after years of absence and claim that he should have been terminated only after a departmental inquiry. Such a proposition is a travesty of law.”

Rejecting the Labour Court’s rationale, the High Court firmly declared: “The finding recorded by the Labour Court that even where the workman has abandoned the job, the said act was required to be proved by holding disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the settled principle of law.”

The High Court allowed the Bank’s writ petition, effectively holding that voluntary abandonment of service by a workman disentitles him from reinstatement or back wages, and a disciplinary inquiry is not mandatory in such cases.

Date of Decision: 1 May 2025