Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when an employee of State Bank of India, serving as a cashier cum clerk, availed leave and overstayed in Japan. Between April and June 1993, he applied for and was granted leave, but thereafter neither reported for duty nor submitted proper documentation for extension, sending only a medical certificate in Japanese which the bank found indecipherable. The bank issued multiple notices, including one dated 05.03.1994 under clause 15 of the bipartite settlement, directing him to resume duty within 30 days or face deemed voluntary retirement. This notice was received by him in Japan, as admitted in his deposition. When he failed to comply, the bank issued a letter dated 24.05.1994 treating him as voluntarily retired effective 05.04.1994. After nearly three years, the employee filed an appeal against this action, which was rejected. He then raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement with back wages. The Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which, by award dated 31.08.2007, partly allowed the reference, directing reinstatement with continuity of service but denying back wages, on the ground that the bank had failed to hold a departmental enquiry and thus violated principles of natural justice. The bank challenged this award in the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The High Court found the tribunal's award to be perverse and unsustainable. It held that clause 15 of the bipartite settlement clearly provided for deemed voluntary retirement in case of failure to report after notice, and the bank had complied with it by sending notice to both the Indian and Japanese addresses, which the employee admitted receiving. The court distinguished between termination for misconduct requiring an enquiry and automatic contractual consequence like voluntary retirement. It also noted that the employee's own conduct—overstaying, not providing decipherable medical evidence, and not responding—triggered the clause, and no stigmatic order was passed. The tribunal's finding that the notice was sent only to the Indian address was contrary to the evidence. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the award and upheld the bank's action as valid. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Voluntary Retirement under Bipartite Settlement - Clause 15 of Bipartite Settlement - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The employee remained absent without approved leave after sanctioned leave and failed to respond to notices sent to his known addresses, including Japan, directing him to report for duty; the employer invoked clause 15 which deems such absence as voluntary retirement. Held, that such action is not a termination for misconduct but a contractual consequence, not requiring a domestic enquiry under principles of natural justice, and the Industrial Tribunal's award granting reinstatement was perverse (Paras 14-18). B) Natural Justice - Necessity of Departmental Enquiry - Plea of Sickness and Language Barrier - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - The employee claimed sickness in Japan and submitted medical certificates in Japanese, which the employer did not translate; the tribunal held that a departmental enquiry should have been held. Held, that the employer had no duty to translate or verify certificates when the employee himself failed to provide decipherable documents and never responded after deemed retirement; the plea of sickness was not established and the employer's action was not stigmatic, so no enquiry was required (Paras 14, 19, 20). C) Perversity - Industrial Tribunal Award - Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Central Government Industrial Tribunal ignored the admitted fact that the notice dated 05.03.1994 was received by the employee in Japan, as per his own deposition, and wrongly found that the notice was sent only to the Ulhasnagar address. Held, that this perverse finding vitiated the award as it disregarded material evidence and the tribunal's own record, justifying interference under writ jurisdiction (Paras 15, 16, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent employee's prolonged absence from duty after sanctioned leave justified the petitioner bank's action of treating him as voluntarily retired under clause 15 of the bipartite settlement, without holding a departmental enquiry, and whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's award granting reinstatement was perverse and unsustainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 31.08.2007 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner bank's action of treating the respondent's absence as voluntary retirement under clause 15 of the bipartite settlement is upheld. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 17B
- Bipartite Settlement Clause 15
- Voluntary Retirement
- Unauthorised Absence
- Principles of Natural Justice
- Perversity of Award
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Reinstatement
- Deemed Voluntary Retirement
