STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M.N.JIVNANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule was issued in this petition on 16.02.2009 and after record of prima facie findings the award impugned in this petition i.e. award dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court granting Respondent No. 1 reinstatement with continuity of service to claim retirement benefits, was stayed. By the same order, this court had granted liberty to the Respondent no. 1 to make an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('said Act'). However, no such application has been made by the Respondent No.1 during the pendency of the petition.

(2.) The facts necessary for the purposes of evaluating the challenges to the impugned award lie in a narrow compass.

(3.) There is no dispute that the Respondent no. 1 was serving as a cashier cum clerk with the Petitioner bank from 05.08.1982 upto 05.04.1994. Between the period 23.04.1993 and 07.05.1993, the Respondent no. 1 availed leave and left for Japan without furnish of any undertaking that he shall not accept any employment in the foreign country and resume duties upon conclusion of the sanctioned leave period. Upon expiry of leave period however, the Respondent no. 1 applied for and was sanctioned sick leave for the period between 10.05.1993 and 19.05.1993. Respondent no. 1, upon conclusion of this period once again applied for and was sanctioned earned leave for the period between 20.05.1993 and 18.06.1993. Upon conclusion of this period, Respondent no. 1 for a considerable period neither reported for duty nor bothered to apply for any leave. On 20.08.1993 however, the Petitioner received application dated 20.06.1993 requesting for extension of leave. The application was accompanied by a purported medical certificate in Japanese language, which according to the Petitioner was not decipherable. By telegram dated 08.10.1993, the Petitioner called upon Respondent no. 1 to resume duties immediately. In response, the Respondent no. 1 once again applied for extension of sick leave by application dated 12.10.1993, again accompanied by a medical certificate in Japanese language. By letter dated 30.10.1993, the Petitioner made it clear that the certificate in Japanese language was not decipherable and the Respondent no. 1 ought to have reported for duties since his previous applications for extension of leave had been declined. Despite all this, the Respondent no. 1 did not report for duties but addressed a letter dated 13.12.1993, which was received by the Petitioner only on 09.03.1994, once again seeking extension of leave. In the meantime, the Petitioner by Registered A.D. addressed notice dated 02.02.1994 to the Respondent no. 1 at his Ulhasnagar address and the Japan address directing him to report for duties immediately and explain the absence without leave. The letters were however returned 'undelivered' by the postal authorities.