ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER LOCAL HEAD OFFICE STATE BANK OF INDIA RAJAJI SALAI CHENNAI Vs. M CHAIDAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Cook in the Staff Quarters of the petitioner Bank known as Underwood Gardens, Chennai. He unauthorisedly absented himself from 17/5/1994 onwards. A notice dated 14.7.1994 was issued to him calling upon him to join duty within three days. But, there was no response to the said notice. It is further stated that yet another notice dated 3.8.1994 was issued by the Bank to the petitioner calling upon him to join duty within 30 days. For the said notice also, it is alleged that there was no response. Finally, a notice dated 22.8.1994 was issued which states as follows:

(2.) THE said notice was acknowledged by the petitioner. THEreafter, the petitioner joined duty and he did not give any explanation also. In view of the same, the petitioner-Bank passed a final order by Memo LO.133 dated 22.9.1994, declaring that the petitioner as deemed to have voluntarily retired from service on 21.1.1994 as per Clause XVI of the Bi-partite Settlement of the year 1998.

(3.) A perusal of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal would go to show that the Industrial Tribunal has held that the crucial notice dated 22.8.1994 does not satisfy the legal requirements, namely, Clause XVI of the Bipartite settlement. In view of the same, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the order dated 22.9.1994 declaring the first respondent as voluntarily retired, is not valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a close reading of Clause XVI of the Bipartite Settlement would go to show that if an employee remains absent for more than 90 days, then after issuing a notice calling upon him to join duty and despite the same, if he fails to attend, then an order declaring that he has retired voluntarily, can be passed. He would further submit that there is no necessity to call upon the employee to submit any explanation in this regard. He wold take me through the notice dated 22.8.1994 in support of his contention that it satisfies the legal requirements. He would say that apart from calling upon the first respondent to join duty, it was also informed to him that if he failed to join duty, he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service on the expiry of the notice period. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel has relied on two judgments. The first one is, the case of Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Another AIR 2000 SC 2198. That is also a case relating to Bipartite Settlement and the absence of duty of an employee for more than 90 days. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: