UCO BANK Vs. JAGLAL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgement and order dated 7th August, 2009 passed in W. P. No.2698 (W) of 2009 this appeal has been preferred. Impugned judgement and order read such :-

(2.) The relevant facts and circumstances of this case which are to be taken into consideration for adjudication of the points of law involved in this case are recorded below. The respondent No. 3 was a Group-D" staff under the respondent-bank in the Head Office. He was absent from his duty on and from July 26, 1998. On March 14, 1998, he left Calcutta. On April 3, 1998, the respondent No. 3 sent a communication to the respondent authority with regard to the intimation of his absence from the services and that communication was received by the respondent-bank on April 28, 1998. The respondent-bank issued a notice dated July 8, 1998 to the petitioner at the following address. "Karbalamore P.O. & Dist. Hooghly". Subsequently, a notice dated October 13, 1998 was issued by the petitioner-bank, to the respondent No. 3 under clause 17 of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement. By an order dated November 16, 1995, the name of the petitioner was struck off from the roll of the petitioner-bank. The petitioner submitted a representation dated January 6, 1999 to the respondent authority for consideration of his absence from services due to his illness and that of his wife. Ultimately, an industrial dispute was raised in the matter and the same was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta. The Tribunal passed the impugned order, Hence, this writ application.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. R. N. Mazumder, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank that the petitioner remained absent from services for a number of months without any intimation. Consequent thereupon, a notice dated October 13, 1998 was issued to the last known address of the petitioner. To substantiate the conduct of the petitioner-bank, Mr. Mazumder, relied upon the contents of the clause 19.16 of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement. According to Mr. Mazumder, the last known address of the respondent No. 1 was "Karbalamore, P.O. & Dist. Hooghly". The petitioner-bank did not receive any intimation with regard to the change of the aforesaid address of the respondent No. 3 nor was any leave address intimated to the petitioner-bank in accordance with the provision of clause 19.16 of the First Bipartite Settlement.