STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. MURTI SINGH NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MURTI Singh joined as peon in the State Bank of Patiala on 1. 6. 1974. He was promoted to the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier on 13. 8. 1974. He applied for leave w. e. f. 2. 7. 1974 to 12. 7. 1994 due to illness of his wife. As his wife did not recover from illness, he requested the Bank to extend his leave up to 23. 7. 1994. At that time, he was posted in the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. On 25. 7. 1994, he went to the office for submitting his joining report. He was not allowed to join duty and was directed to approach the office of the Assistant General Manager, Chandigarh, who too did not allow him to join duty. On 4. 11. 1994, he received letter whereby he was retired from service and was directed to deposit one month's salary in lieu of notice. He filed suit for declaration against the State Bank of Patiala, the Mall Patiala through its General Manager in the Civil Court at Patiala. He challenged order dated 4. 11. 1994 whereby he was retired from service with the direction to deposit one month's salary in lieu of notice. It was alleged in the plaint that the order was illegal, ultra vires, mala fide, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, penal in nature, discriminatory in character, arbitrary capricious and against the principles of natural justice and the rules and regulations of the Bank governing his service. It was further alleged that notwithstanding the said illegal order, he was entitled to continue on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier with all rights and benefits and privileges including arrears of pay and allowances with interest @ 18% per annum compoundable annually which he would have drawn/enjoyed if the said order had not been passed. It was alleged that allegation of absence from duty amounts to mis-conduct which could be established against him only after enquiry. In this case, no regular enquiry was conducted against him. Order of retirement is punitive in character attaching stigma to him.

(2.) DEFENDANT-BANK contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that there is Bipartite Settlement which governs the plaintiffs and the Bank. Bank is an "industry". Civil Court had no jurisdiction. He joined as a Peon-cum-Frash to start with. As such, he was a "workman". On rejection of the leave application, he was informed by means of letter No. 412 dated 12. 7. 1994 that as leave of any kind could not be claimed as of right and no extension of leave could be deemed to have been sanctioned unless order to that effect was passed and communicated to the employee concerned. He was asked to report for duty. Instead of reporting for duty, he remained absent unauthorisedly thereafter also. He had been unauthorisedly absenting from 7. 2. 1994 to 10. 6. 1994. During that period, he was served with two registered notices dated 8. 3. 1994 and 11. 4. 1994 advising him that his unauthorised absence would result into voluntary cessation of service but taking lenient view into the matter, the Chief Manager of the Bank allowed the plaintiff to join duty on 11. 6. 1994. He again absented himself unauthorisedly w. e. f. 2. 7. 1994 onwards. On account of his absence, registered notices dated 14. 7. 1994 and 13. 8. 1994 were served upon him advising him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of notice failing which he was further advised that he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank's service on the expiry of the period of notice. Further, he will also be liable to pay to the Bank one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Inspite of all the said notices, he did not report for duty within the stipulated period. Finally, by letter dated 4. 11. 1994, he was advised of his having voluntarily retired from his service of the defendant-Bank according to the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement/award. There was no necessity of holding any enquiry against him. Order of voluntarily retirement was passed by the Bank in accordance with the service rules.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 4. Relief.