ABDUL SALAM Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concepts of 'absenteeism', 'abscondment' and 'abandonment' in work place sometimes are subject to confusion among employers, which causes them to deal with specific instances, presenting one or the other of these, incorrectly. In modern labour law there is a distinction between each of these concepts. Absenteeism generally when an employee remains without reporting for duty unauthorisedly for short periods of time. Abscondment is often deemed when an employee is absent from work for a time that warrants an inference that he does not intend to return to work. Abandonment occurs when an employee has intimated, expressly or by implication, that he does not desire to report to work.

(2.) In all these three cases, there is one some form of absenteeism but in the case of abandonment, there are three elements which are generally present, namely that an employee is absent without employer's authority; that he has not been in contact with the employer for substantially large periods of time to explain why he is absent and his intention is never to report to work.

(3.) This writ petition is at the instance of an employee in the services of the Kerala State Electricity Board, who is alleged to have remained continuously absent from duty leading to his dismissal from service without an enquiry. The petitioner asserts that such termination without even an enquiry is illegal while the respondents maintain that no such enquiry is required since the petitioner is not merely absent for long periods but that he should be deemed to have abandoned his service. It is in such circumstance that this Court is now called upon to consider whether every case of long absenteeism would amount to abandonment of service or whether such a factum will require more substantiation to be offered by the employer relying either on the express or implied intent of the employee.