Abandoned Service Allegation: Is Compliance with Section 25F of the ID Act Necessary?

In the event a workman is alleged to have abandoned the service, can compliance under Section 25F of the ID Act be dispensed with?

Termination of Service and Abandonment

Where the termination of service is under a stipulation contained in the Standing Order or service rules, and opportunities have been given to the employee before presuming abandonment of service, the courts are likely to uphold the action as not amounting to retrenchment. Therefore, compliance with Section 25 (F) is not required. This is in line with Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act.

Applicability of Section 25F

The applicability of Section 25F is to be decided by the employer based on the situation.

Case Reference: Manju Saxena v. Union of India

In cases where one does not want to consider the matter under Section 25F, a decision can be made based on the case of Manju Saxena v. Union of India ("SC"). The Hon'ble court reiterated that if an employee abandons service voluntarily, they will not be covered under the ambit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act ("ID Act") 1947, which provides for conditions precedent for the retrenchment of workmen. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11766-11767 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 30205-30206 of 2017).

Dear friends,

Analyzing the Supreme Court Judgment in Manju Saxena's Case

Critically analyzing the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in Manju Saxena's case in the context of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that a reasonable presumption of any employee's abandonment of service by the employer, though it is so provided for in the standing orders or service regulations applicable, ipso facto, cannot be a valid ground for skipping the provisions of Section 25-F, unless a disciplinary proceeding is conducted following the principles of natural justice.

Understanding Retrenchment Under the IDA, 1947

In this connection, if we appreciate the definition of the term 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo) of the IDA, 1947, in its totality as well as with a conjunctive reading of Section 25-F, we can conclude that any act of the employer terminating the services of a workman having completed 240 days of continuous service in his establishment, sans the exceptions mentioned therein, becomes retrenchment. In such a situation, non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F would automatically render it illegal.