Workman is alleged to have abandoned the service, compliance under Section 25F required?

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

Where the termination of service is under a stipulation in that behalf contained the Standing Order/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, and so compliance of Section 25 (F) is not called for. This is as per Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act.

The Section 25 F is applicable and not applicable to be decided by the employer looking into the situation.

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

Dear friends,

Critically analysing 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 proceedings conducted following the principles of natural justice.

In this connection, if we appreciate the definition of the term ' retrenchment ' u/s 2 (oo) of the IDA,1947 in its totality as well as with a conjunctive reading of sec.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 of the provisions of sec.25-F would automatically render it illegal.

What a fitting and knowledge reply from our erudite member of this forum. Dear Shri Umakanthan Sir, We are all amazed to be in this elite forum where a leader like you supports and train us in all aspects of HR and Legal avenues. Thanks for your great support and knowledge sharing among our team members.