INDIAN BANK Vs. S MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge passed in W. M. P. No. 22602/2000 in W. P. No. 16490 of 1997 dated 13. 10. 2000, directing the appellant Bank to pay the respondent/employee her last drawn wage of Rs. 3,000/- per month from April,1999 to October,2000, within a period of four weeks and continue to pay the same last drawn wages every month till the disposal of the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE facts succinctly narrated as follows: the first respondent was employed as clerk cum shroff-typist in the appellant Bank in the Kumarapalayam Branch. She was, on her own request, transferred to the Zonal Office, Coimbatore. She joined duty on 08. 12. 1989 and indicated that she was availing one week joining time and then she did not report for duty from 15. 12. 1989 onwards. By communication dated 30. 12. 1989, she was called upon to report for duty and the letter was sent to the address given by her to the Bank. As she did not report for work on 15. 12. 1989 and after awaiting for a few days, on 30. 12. 1989, the Bank sent a letter to the First respondent to the address given by her asking her to report for duty immediately. While the employee acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 30. 12. 1989, the petitioner received the letter dated Nil on 03. 01. 1990 stating that she was suffering from pain in the Vertebral bone and requested for leave without giving any specific time duration. The bank informed her by letter dated 03. 01. 1990 to apply for the leave in the prescribed format with medical certificate. This letter was sent to the employee to the address given by her by the bank. No response was forthcoming from the employee and the Bank had no knowledge whatever about her whereabouts and for the first time after about one year she wrote to the Bank by her letter dated 26. 12. 1990 giving her address at Bangalore but without enclosing any medical certificate for alleged illness. Nothing was thereafter heard from the employee and almost one year later, the Bank received a letter dated 24. 01. 1991 that as per Doctor's advice she must stay at Bangalore. In the meanwhile since nothing had been heard from her, the Bank had issued letter dated 19. 03. 1990 sent to her last known address as available with the bank informing her that as a result of clause 17 (a) of the fifth Bipartite Settlement she had terminated her services with the Bank herself.

(3.) THE net result was that from 09. 12. 1989 she was continuously absent from duty. Eventually since the petitioner was absent continuously, the Bank invoked clause 17 (a) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10. 04. 1989 and informed the employee by letter dated 19. 03. 1990 that in terms of the said settlement she had herself voluntarily terminated her services on her own volition her employment with the Bank with effect from 17. 04. 1990 (i. e.) from the date of expiry of 30 days in terms of clause 17 (a) of the said Bipartite Settlement. Even this letter sent to her was not served on her. The termination of services was referred as I. D. No. 105/1992 before the second respondent. After elaborate trial, the second respondent held that the Bank had rightly come to the conclusion that because of the long absence of the employee without any intimation, she was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services. The Industrial Tribunal expressed its helplessness to interfere in the matter because this was not a case of punishment for misconduct, but a case of relinquishment of services by the employee by her own action. The learned Judge found that the employee had shown supine indifference in informing the Bank of her absence for a period of over one year.