The Bombay High Court has set aside a 2013 dismissal order issued by National Insurance Company against a veteran employee of 36 years, ruling that long-term absence caused by documented sickness cannot be treated as a voluntary abandonment of employment.
A division bench comprising Justice R.I. Chagla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla ordered the public sector insurer to release the petitioner’s retirement benefits, including pension and provident fund settlements. The court further directed the company to disburse back wages for any active duty periods that did not fall under approved leave.
The ruling came on a writ petition challenging the insurer’s April 8, 2013 termination order, which had summarily removed the employee from his post without serving a fresh notice or conducting a departmental inquiry. An internal appellate body had earlier upheld the sacking on June 5, 2017.
Legal Standard on Abandonment
In its verdict delivered on October 12, the bench held that unexcused absence alone does not provide sufficient legal grounds to presume an employee has relinquished their job. The judges stated that establishing voluntary abandonment requires concrete proof showing an unequivocal and intentional decision by the staff member to permanently sever ties with the organization.
The court noted that sustained communication regarding medical difficulties, backed by doctor-certified leave requests, completely negates the insurer’s claim of unannounced job abandonment.
Decade-Long Medical Dispute
The petitioner began his career with National Insurance Company as a development officer and rose through ranks that included assistant administrative officer and assistant manager, compiling an unblemished record in Mumbai over three decades.
His workplace troubles started around 2005, when the company issued sequential transfer orders moving him first from Mumbai to Vapi in Gujarat, then to Pune, and shortly thereafter to a divisional office in Pimpri. During this transition, the employee developed serious medical complications that required specialized care in Mumbai.
In 2006, the petitioner collapsed at the Pimpri facility following acute respiratory distress. His health deteriorated further, prompting multiple written requests for medical leave alongside petitions seeking a transfer back to Mumbai.
To evaluate the claims, the insurer hired a retired assistant commissioner of police. While the investigator visited the employee’s residence in Mumbai, observed him bedridden, and assisted in moving him to a medical facility, the resulting assessment report was never provided to the worker.
The insurer subsequently cited continuous non-attendance exceeding 600 days to issue the dismissal notice, classifying the absence as desertion.
Consistent Intent to Serve
Reviewing the historical records, the bench observed that the employee consistently sought reassignments to Mumbai, forwarded certificates from medical specialists, asked for disciplinary proceedings to occur locally due to mobility issues, and formally applied for a voluntary separation package. The bench held that these repeated steps clearly demonstrated an ongoing desire to remain employed rather than an intention to quit.
The court also dismissed the insurer’s argument that the petition should be rejected because the employee had defaulted on staff housing and vehicle loans. The judges ruled that loan repayment disputes cannot serve as valid justification for dismissing a legal challenge against an unlawful termination.
