2005 (5) TMI 680 - SC - Indian Laws

Non-grant of back wages - Challenged the Judgment and order dated 10.2.2003 passed by the High - Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, directing the workman to be reinstated in service with the benefit of past service without any back wages - bipartite settlement - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the said settlement would show that on receipt of a notice contemplated thereunder, the workman must either (1) report for duties within thirty days; (2) give his explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has not taken any employment or avocation; and (3) show that he has no intention of not joining the duties. It is, thus, only when the workman concerned does not join his duties within thirty days or fails to file a satisfactory explanation, as referred to hereinbefore, the legal fiction shall come into force. In the instant case except for asking for grant of medical leave, he did not submit any explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has not taken up any other employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining his duties. Thus, we do not see any reason as to why the Bank could not arrive at a satisfaction that the workman had no intention to join his duties. It is interesting to note that though the said order was passed on 17.5.1984, a representation to the Bank was made by the workman to reconsider the said decision after a period of 3 years and 2 months by a letter dated 31.7.1987 Yet again a dispute was sought to be raised by issuance of a legal notice on the Bank only on 6.4.1989. Mere sending of an application for grant of leave much after the period of leave was over as also the date of resuming duties cannot be said to be a bona fide act on the part of the workman. The Bank, as noticed hereinbefore, in response to the lawyer's notice categorically stated that the workman had been carrying on some business elsewhere. Therefore, we have ourselves considered the pleadings of the parties as also the materials on records, it is not necessary to remit the matter to the Tribunal as it would not serve any purpose. So far as the appeal preferred by the workman is concerned, it is not necessary to entertain the same as it is evident that Section 17-B of the of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot now be applied in view of the fact that the workman did not file an affidavit before the learned Single Judge in support of his contentions and as required under law. Thus, we are of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the Bank should be allowed and that of the workman should be dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the bipartite settlement dated 8.9.1983.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Applicability of the bipartite settlement.
4. Requirement of a full-fledged departmental proceeding.
5. Grant of back wages to the workman.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Bipartite Settlement Dated 8.9.1983:
The core issue in these appeals was the interpretation of a bipartite settlement entered into on 8.9.1983 between the management of 58 banks, including the appellant bank, and their workmen. The settlement, particularly Clause 2, dealt with the voluntary cessation of employment by employees. The clause outlined that if an employee absents himself for 90 or more consecutive days without leave or beyond the leave sanctioned, and the management is satisfied that the employee has no intention of joining duties, the employee could be deemed to have voluntarily retired after a 30-day notice period.

2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Bank argued that it had complied with the principles of natural justice by giving the workman repeated opportunities to explain his position and report for duties. The workman, however, contended that a full-fledged departmental proceeding was necessary. The court held that a limited inquiry, as conducted by the Bank, sufficed to meet the requirements of natural justice. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice do not necessarily mandate a full departmental inquiry in every case, especially when facts are admitted and opportunities to explain are provided.

3. Applicability of the Bipartite Settlement:
The workman did not dispute the existence of the bipartite settlement but argued its non-applicability. The Bank maintained that the settlement's stipulations were applicable and that the workman's prolonged absence without satisfactory explanation justified invoking the settlement's provisions. The court found that the settlement was applicable and that the workman was aware of it, as evidenced by the notices and memorandums issued to him.

4. Requirement of a Full-Fledged Departmental Proceeding:
The court held that a full-fledged departmental proceeding was not required in this case. The bipartite settlement provided a specific mechanism for dealing with prolonged absences, which included giving the employee a notice and an opportunity to explain. The court cited previous judgments, including Syndicate Bank vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Another, and Punjab & Sind Bank and Others vs. Sakattar Singh, to support the view that the procedure followed by the Bank was adequate and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

5. Grant of Back Wages to the Workman:
The workman had filed a writ petition questioning the non-grant of back wages. However, the court found that the workman had not complied with the procedural requirements under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, as he did not file an affidavit in support of his contentions. Consequently, the court dismissed the workman's appeal regarding back wages.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal preferred by the Bank and dismissed the appeal of the workman. The court concluded that the Bank had acted fairly and in compliance with the principles of natural justice by following the procedure outlined in the bipartite settlement. The workman's prolonged absence without satisfactory explanation justified the Bank's decision to deem him as having voluntarily retired. The court also noted that the workman's delayed actions and failure to provide proper medical certificates further supported the Bank's decision.

← Previous Next →