K C KOTHARI Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 22nd January, 2004, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as an Army Guard with the respondent bank since 1983. He was posted at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Branch of the Bank. He started absenting himself from duty without any sanctioned leave and without prior intimation, without submitting leave application since 16th August, 1991. The Division Office of the respondent, vide letter dated 31st October, 1991 called upon him to report for duty immediately. He was also informed that he has been posted now at Palam Branch and has been relieved from G.T.B. Nagar Branch, so he should report at Palam Branch. The petitioner did not report for duty. Another letter dated 23rd November, 1991 was written to the petitioner that he should immediately report for duty at Palam Branch failing which, the respondent would be constrained to take action against him as per rules and procedure. The petitioner still did not report for duty. The respondent sent another letter dated 3rd December, 1991, asking the petitioner to report for duty within three days of the receipt of letter and submit an explanation and leave application for his previous absence. The petitioner, vide his letter dated 10th December, 1991 handed over the receipt of letters dated 31st October, 1991, 23rd November, 1991 and 3rd December, 1991, but expressed his inability to report for duty. He made a request that the management should transfer him to Saharanpur, Haridwar or Kankhal Branch to enable him to look after his ailing wife and perform duty as well. The respondent wrote another letter dated 19th December, 1991, giving the petitioner a final opportunity to report for duty along with explanation. He was also informed that his request for transfer to Saharanpur, Haridwar or Kankhal Branch has been turned down. The petitioner still did not report for duty. He, however, wrote a letter dated 31st January, 1992 and acknowledging the receipt of earlier letters. When the petitioner failed to report for duty, the respondent issued notice dated 11.2.1992 to the petitioner directing him to report for duty within 30 days of the notice i.e. on or before 11.3.1992, failing which, the bank shall be constrained to consider that he has voluntarily retired from service in terms of the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. The petitioner was also told to give explanation for unauthorized absence. The notice was duly served upon the petitioner and the petitioner sent a reply stating that he was unable to report for duty and he also gave explanation about his unauthorized absence that his wife was ill. When the petitioner did not report for duty, the respondent, in terms of the Bipartite Settlement, considered that the petitioner deemed to have voluntarily retired on the expiry of the notice period. After this decision of the respondent, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication in following terms:

(3.) The Tribunal found that there was no force in the claim of the petitioner that his services were illegally terminated. The Tribunal observed that in all letters which the petitioner wrote to the respondent, he refused to join duty at Palam Branch where he was transferred. The transfer was one of the conditions of his service and he was duty bound to join at Palam Branch where he was posted. He could not put a condition to the authority to transfer him at a particular place. The Tribunal also observed that he was rightly deemed to have voluntarily retired in view of the Bipartite Settlement.