Sec 25F of Industrial Disputes Act not applicable if Workman abandons service, SC

The Supreme Court has reiterated that once a workman voluntarily abandons his service, Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would cease to apply to him as he could not be deemed to be in “continuous service” at the time of his retrenchment..“Once it is established that the Appellant had voluntarily abandoned her service, she could not have been in “continuous service” as defined under S. 2(oo) the I.D. Act, 1947. S. 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down the conditions that are required to be fulfilled by an employer while terminating the services of an employee, who has been in “continuous service” of the employer. Hence, S. 25F of the I.D. Act, would cease to apply on her”, the Court stated..The judgment was passed by a Bench of Justices Abhay M Sapre and Indu Malhotra in an SLP challenging the termination conditions of the Appellant, imposed by employer HSBC Bank..The Appellant, Manju Saxena who worked as Lady Confidential Secretary with HSBC Bank, was promoted to the post of Senior Confidential Secretary to the Senior Manager (North India), HSBC. After the officer with whom the Appellant was attached left his office, Appellant’s post of Senior Confidential Secretary became redundant..HSBC management, therefore, offered her four alternate jobs in the same pay scale, namely Business Development Officer, Customer Service Officer, Clearing Officer, and Banking Services Officer. The Appellant, however, declined to accept any of these jobs..At last, HSBC terminated the services of the Appellant on the ground that her current job had become redundant and she had refused to accept the alternative offers made to her. The Bank offered a generous severance package to the Appellant, which she declined. The Bank nonetheless paid 6 months’ compensation in lieu of Notice as per the contract of employment and also paid her compensation equivalent to 15 days’ salary for every completed year of service..The Appellant raised an Industrial Dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner, seeking enhancement of the severance package paid to her, but did not raise any claim for reinstatement to HSBC. Since the Appellant sought a severance package of over Rs 91 lakh, and HSBC was ready to pay approximately Rs 57 lakh, the conciliation proceedings failed..The Appellant then filed her Statement of Claim before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal claiming enhanced severance package, waiver of outstanding Housing Loan, and full pension. The Tribunal directed HSBC to reinstate the Appellant, with full terminal benefits..HSBC filed a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court to challenge the Award passed by the Tribunal..The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider whether the Appellant could be considered to be a “Workman” as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While the writ was still pending, the Tribunal passed a second award, holding the Appellant to be a workman. It further directed HSBC to reinstate the Appellant with continuity of service, full back wages, and all consequential benefits..Meanwhile, the High Court directed HSBC to pay monthly interim maintenance to the Appellant under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act..Ultimately, the Award passed by the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court in the writ petition. It held that the Appellant’s conduct amounted to “abandonment” of her job, and thus there was no question of her services having been illegally terminated..The High Court also recorded that the Appellant had already received monetary benefits in excess of the compensation she was entitled to under the law. Hence, the Appellant was not entitled to any additional amount..The order of the Single Judge Bench to the extent that the Appellant had abandoned her job, was upheld by the Division Bench in appeal as well as Revision. The Appellant then preferred the present SLP..Observing that the HSBC had complied with all the statutory requirements under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court held that HSBC was justified in terminating the services of the Appellant..It stated that the intentions of the Appellant to abandon her job could be inferred from her refusal to accept any of the four alternative positions offered by HSBC. It also noted that across all forums, the Appellant had only claimed enhancement of compensation and not reinstatement..“The Appellant’s conduct would constitute a voluntary abandonment of service since the Appellant herself had declined to accept the various offers of service in the Bank. Furthermore, even during conciliation proceedings, she has only asked for an enhanced severance package, and not reinstatement”, the Court recorded..Since the Appellant ceased to be in “continuous service” of HSBC by virtue of her abandonment, the Supreme Court held that Section 25F of would cease to apply to her..The Court also reiterated that the requirement of clause (c) of Section 25F, i.e., notifying the appropriate Government or authority about the retrenchment, can be treated only as directory and not mandatory..The Court also rejected any claim for payment of more money to the Appellant, stating that she has already received almost double the amount claimed by her. It thus decreed,.“The Civil Appeals stand dismissed, with no order as to costs. All applications stand disposed of accordingly.”.HSBC was represented by Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, with Advocate Gagan Gupta. The Appellant appeared in-person..Read the Judgement below.