In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court in Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society v. Indira Madhukar Muraskar & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2055, ruled that where employees remain absent for a prolonged period without valid justification and fail to respond to repeated notices to resume duty, the employer can treat such absence as voluntary abandonment of employment. The Court held that removal of names from the muster roll in such cases does not amount to illegal termination or retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The facts involved employees who had gone on strike in 1993 and did not return to work despite an Industrial Court order declaring the strike an unfair labour practice. The employer issued multiple letters asking the employees to rejoin, but they neither responded nor resumed duty. Eventually, the employer struck off their names from the muster roll. The employees challenged this, and the Labour Court held it to be illegal termination due to non-compliance with Sections 25F and 25G of the ID Act. However, the High Court reversed this finding.

The Court emphasised that in such cases, it is the conduct of the employee that determines the nature of the separation. Where the employee does not return to work despite clear communication from the employer, a legal presumption of abandonment can arise. Importantly, the Court clarified that this is not a “positive act” of termination by the employer but a consequence of the employee’s own conduct. Therefore, the employer is not required to follow the procedure for retrenchment.

Further, the Court held that a formal enquiry is not mandatory in such situations if the facts clearly indicate abandonment. The employer had placed adequate evidence, postal records, employee acknowledgments, and follow-up notices before the Court to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to call the employees back. The burden, then, shifts to the employee to prove otherwise, which they failed to do.

This judgment is significant for employers, especially in sectors where staff absenteeism can affect operations. It confirms that long unauthorised absence, if not adequately explained, may be deemed voluntary resignation. Employers are advised, however, to ensure that appropriate written communications are issued, preferably through registered post, and that opportunities to resume work are clearly documented.

The decision reinforces that abandonment of service does not amount to retrenchment and does not attract the procedural safeguards under the Industrial Disputes Act, provided the employer’s actions are fair and reasonable.