Nagpur: In a significant verdict, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that removing employees from the muster roll does not amount to termination of service if they repeatedly fail to report back to duty despite multiple notices. The court overturned the decisions of the Industrial and Labour Courts, which had earlier ordered the reinstatement of employees with partial back wages.
Background of the Case:
Between 1991 and 1993, several individuals were appointed as assistant cooks, clerks, accountants, librarians, and caretakers by the Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society. In August 1993, the employees issued a strike notice over certain demands and subsequently did not return to work. Despite repeated communications from the institution — dated September 15, November 26, 1993; January 5, March 15, and April 2, 1994 — the employees failed to rejoin duty.
Gold Rate
26 May 2025
A final notice was issued on June 1, 1994, stating that failure to return would be treated as voluntary resignation. As the employees neither returned nor provided any justification, their names were removed from the muster roll.
Legal Challenge:
The employees approached the Labour Commissioner and filed complaints with the Industrial and Labour Courts, claiming their removal amounted to illegal termination. The Labour Court ruled in their favor, terming the act as an unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It ordered their reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of removal (June 2, 1994) till actual reinstatement.
High Court’s Ruling:
Challenging these orders, the Society filed a petition in the High Court. After reviewing the case, the High Court quashed the decisions dated September 27, 2016, and November 26, 2018 (by the Industrial Court) and December 3, 2010, and January 12, 2015 (by the Labour Court).
The Court observed that the Society had followed due process and issued multiple notices. As the employees failed to return without any explanation, it could be considered as voluntary abandonment of service, not termination. Therefore, the removal from the muster roll was legally justified.
Clarification on Legal Interpretation:
The employees had argued that removal from the muster roll constituted termination under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thereby requiring compliance with Sections 25F and 25G. However, the High Court ruled that since the absence was voluntary and prolonged, these provisions did not apply.
This judgment sets a precedent for employers dealing with prolonged absenteeism and underlines the importance of documented communication and due procedure.
