STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MAN MOHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 8.7.2004 passed by CGIT cum Labour Court II, New Delhi whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the workman.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent was working as a clerk in main Branch of Dehradun of the petitioner bank. As per the petitioner the respondent indulged in certain financial irregularities on 10.2.1990 to benefit his relatives for which he was issued a charge-sheet. Due to administrative exigencies the petitioner bank transferred the respondent on 9.6.1990 from Dehradun to Bhiri Branch, District Chamoli (then U.P.). The respondent refused to accept the letter of transfer dated 9.6.1990 and the said letter was sent by registered post at his last recorded address viz. 14, Khurbura Mohalla, Dehradun. The respondent did not join at the place of his transfer. The representatives of the union of the petitioner bank on 18.6.1990 and 20.6.1990 held agitation and protests against the transfer of the respondent to Bhiri Branch. The petitioner at the request of the respondent made through office bearers of SBI Staff Association, considered the demand sympathetically and transferred the respondent from Bhiri Branch to Mohabewala Branch within Dehradun vide order dated 11.7.1990 and intimated him. The respondent did not join Mohabewala Branch, Dehradun as well and remained unauthorisedly absent from the petitioner bank without any intimation. However, the respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 11.7.1990 transferring him to Mohabewala Branch, Dehradun filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad praying for quashing of the transfer order dated 11.7.1990.

(3.) Since the respondent had been absenting from his duty without any intimation and without sanctioned leave, unauthorisedly from 9.6.1990 petitioner bank vide its letter dated 1.9.1990 advised the respondent to report for duty and explain the reasons for his absence. The respondent sent one application on 20.9.1990 and another on 24.10.1990 to the previous branch from where he was already transferred, instead of sending it to Mohabewala Branch where he was posted, not recognising his transfer. In his leave applications, he stated that he was running ill health. He did not enclose any medical certificate. The Branch Manager of Mohabewala where the respondent was posted i.e. Controlling Authority of the respondent, did not receive any reply to the letter dated 1.9.1990 and wrote another letter dated 1.10.1990 to the respondent asking him to join duty within 30 days. The petitioner also made enquiries from postal authorities regarding delivery of the letter dated 1.9.1990. The postal authorities confirmed in writing that the respondent refused to receive the letter. This letter was sent by the petitioner, at the last recorded address of the respondent i.e. 14, Khurbara Mohalla, Dehradun. The respondent was also advised by the previous branch where he had sent his leave applications, to communicate with his present controlling authority and his two letters/applications dated 20.9.90 and 24.10.90 received at the previous branch were returned to him. On 3.11.1990, the respondent was advised that since he had failed to report for duty within 30 days, he was deemed to have voluntary retired from the bank service w.e.f. 3.11.1990 in terms of the Bipartite Agreement entered into between the bank and its employees' Union. Soon after the deemed voluntary retirement, the respondent reported for duty to bank on 10.12.1990. He was told that he has already been voluntary retired in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. The respondent then raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the CGIT cum Labour Court in following terms: