U.P. SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman is before this Court impugning the order,[Order dtd. 10/2/2011.] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court,[High Court of Delhi] in an intra court appeal,[Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 2010], whereby the order,[Order dtd/ 26/2/2010.] passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition,[Writ Petition No. 7834 of 2003] was upheld.

(2.) The learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside the award,[Award dtd. 27/8/2003.] of the Tribunal,[Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court]. Vide the aforesaid award, the prayer of the workman was accepted, and order dtd. 5/12/1984 deeming that the workman had voluntarily retired, was set aside. He was directed to be reinstated with full back wages along with interest and consequential benefits.

(3.) The brief facts of the case, as are available on record, are that the workman was appointed with the Bank,[Punjab National Bank] on 20.06.1977 as Clerkcum- Cashier. Initially, he was working at Barabanki. Thereafter, he was transferred to Zaidpur, Barabanki and then to Shahjanhanpur in August 1978. On 14/6/1982, he was suspended on account of his disorderly behaviour. On enquiry, the workman was found guilty of the charges and awarded punishment of stoppage of two graded increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28/9/1983. Vide the same order, he was advised to report for duty to the Manager, Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao. The workman failed to join duty. In terms of Clause XVI,[Clause XVI- Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employees] of the Bipartite Agreement,[Fourth Bipartite Agreement dtd. 17/9/1984.] between Indian Banks' Association and Workmen Unions, vide order dtd. 5/12/1984, the workman was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Bank, six years later, the workman raised a dispute about his deemed retirement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. On 15/11/1991, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The question referred was answered by the Tribunal in favour of the workman. However, the learned Single Judge reversed the award of the Tribunal and the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.