INDIAN BANK Vs. S MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these two writ petitions arise out of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in I.D.No.105 of 1992 dated 24.04.1997, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties are referred to in the array of parties in W.P.No.17493 of 1998.

(2.) THE petitioner Mrs.Maheswari was appointed as a clerk cum typist in the respondent Bank and she joined duty on 24.02.1986 at Kumarapalayam Branch. On confirmation in services, she was transferred to the Zonal Office, Coimbatore at her request and accordingly she joined duty on 08.12.1990. On reporting duty on 08.12.1989, the petitioner informed that she would be availing joining time of 6 days from 09.12.1989 and report for duty on 15.12.1989. On 15.12.1989 as assured by her earlier she did not turn up for duty. In this regard, the Zonal Office, Coimbatore of the respondent Bank sent a letter dated 30.12.1989 to the petitioner informing about her unauthorized absence and asking her to report for duty forthwith. THE said communication was sent to her address at Coimbatore which was furnished by her to the Zonal Office and the same was acknowledged by her. But, she did not turn up for duty forthwith. Instead, she sent a letter dated 03.01.1990 stating that she was suffering from pain in her vertebral column and so she was not in a position to report for duty. She requested for leave. On receipt of the letter dated 03.01.1990, the respondent bank sent a letter on the same day calling upon her to apply for leave, if need be, in the prescribed format along with appropriate medical certificate. THE said letter was also sent to the very same address which was earlier furnished by her to the Zonal Office. But, there was no response for the said letter. Again on 02.02.1990, the respondent bank sent another letter to the petitioner calling upon her to submit her leave application with medical certificate within 3 days or in the alternative to report for duty immediately. But, this letter, which was sent by way of registered post with acknowledgement due, was returned to the respondent bank with an endorsement by the postal authorities as "not found". THEreafter , on 19.03.1990, the respondent bank sent another letter through registered post to the petitioner giving her 30 days time to report for duty as per Clause 17 (a) of the Bi-partite settlement and further informed that in the event of her failure to either reporting for duty or submitting any valid explanation she would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service on the expiry of the notice period. THE said notice was sent to the very same address at Coimbatore which was also not served. THE notice period of 30 days expired on 17.04.1990. THErefore, in terms of clause 17 (a) of the Bi-partite settlement, a final notice was issued on 02.05.1990 informing the petitioner that she was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 17.04.1990. This notice was also not served on the petitioner and the same was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement "as not found". Thus, according to the respondent bank, as per clause 17(a) of the Bi-partite settlement, the petitioner voluntarily retired from service with effect from 17.04.1990 and thereafter, there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent bank and the petitioner.

(3.) IN the counter filed before the industrial tribunal, the respondent bank contended that the above two notices were sent to her last known address at Coimbatore because that was the address furnished by her at the time when she reported for duty on 08.12.1989. Thereafter, there was no response to the above notice from her at all. The notice dated 19.03.1990 and final notice dated 02.05.1990, which were sent to her last known address at Coimbatore, were all returned as "not found" . It was further contended that the letter dated 07.02.1990 said to have been sent by the petitioner to the respondent bank informing the bank about her change of address was never received by the bank. For the first time, in the letter dated 16.02.1991, the petitioner had made a reference about the alleged letter dated 07.02.1990. As a matter of fact, no such letter was sent on 07.02.1990. The claim of the petitioner that a letter informing change of address was sent on 07.02.1990 had been invented for the purpose of the case. Thus, according to the respondent bank, the order dated 02.05.1990 effecting voluntary retirement with effect from 17.04.1990 is valid and the same requires no intereference.