PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as clerk and was posted at Jeevani Mandi, Agra Branch of the Bank. The petitioner remained absent from duty without leave since 12. 11. 1991. He was asked vide notice dated 13. 5. 1992 by the respondent-Bank to join the services within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said notice. The petitioner re ported duty on 11. 6:1992 within 30 days. The petitioner again remained absent without leave from the Bank w. e. f. 21. 6. 1992. A notice dated 8. 9. 1992 was issued to the petitioner, directing him to report on duty within 30 days from the date pf publication of the notice and submit an explanation for unauthorized absence, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This notice is alleged to have been published on the Notice board of the Bank on 9. 9. 1992. The said notice was served on the petitioner on 14. 9. 1992 by a Registered post. The petitioner reported on duty well within the period of 30 days from 14. 9. 1992. In stead of permitting the petitioner to join the duty, the Branch Manager issued a communication dated 12. 10. 19921othepetitionermentioningthereinthat, since the joining report of the petitioner was beyond 30 days from the date of publica tion of its notice on the Notice Board of the Bank, he would not be allowed to join and also the reason of his absence was unacceptable, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Subsequently, vide order dated 28,11. 1992 passed by the General Manager of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank, in view of the Clause 17 of the Vth Bipartite Settlement dated 10. 4. 1989.

(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 28. 11. 1992 passed by the General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Bangalore (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Central Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the Central Government vide its order dated 25. 1. 1990 made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute, as to whether the termination of service of the petitioner wife order dated 28. 11. 1992 w. e. f. 8. 10. 1992 was legal and justified, and if not, to what relief the petitioner was entitled to. THE Central Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur after hear ing the parties to the dispute passed its award dated 23. 4. 2001, which was pub lished on 27. 4. 2001.

(3.) PURSUANT to order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, present writ petition has again been taken up for consideration of grant of back wages.