IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorised absence of 150 days or more will be deemed abandonment of service by the employee in terms of clause 17(b) of the Bipartite Agreement.

Judgment :

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

1.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.9.2003 in Civil Writ Petition No.36619 of 1996.

2.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

.3. The brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition, is that Respondent no.2 was employed in the office of petitioner- Bank on 21.7.1980 as accounts clerk. Her husband was employed at Libya. She on two occasions i.e. from 4.8.1986 to 29.3.1987 and again from 20.7.1987 to 10.4.1988 i.e. more than 266 days, remained absent from duty, but the petitioner-Bank condoned the aforesaid acts of absence of leaving the country without permission. Respondent no.2 again left for Libya with effect from 22.8.1988 without permission and without any sanction of leave. She did not turn up to join her duties for more than 150 consecutive days. The petitioner-Bank invoked the provisions of Clause 17(b) of Fifth Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989 and issued notice to respondent no.2 on 26.6.1989 to report for duty within 30 days, failing which it would be presumed that she has voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank. Pursuant to the said letter dated 26.6.1989, it has been alleged that respondent no.2 failed to report for duty and instead she sent two letters to the Senior Manager of the

.Bank at Bareilly, the first letter dated 27.7.1989 in which she stated that she would be resuming her duty in the last week of August, 1989, and the second letter dated 22.8.1989 requesting for extension of leave without pay upto April, 1990 on the ground of her domestic problems. Despite her letter dated 27.7.1989 she did not resume duty in the last week of August 1989. By means of communication dated 25.8.1989, the petitioner-Bank treated the contesting respondent as having voluntarily terminated her employment, and asked her to approach the authority concerned for claiming terminal benefits in the prescribed format.

.4. Aggrieved against the same the respondent approached the Central Government, Ministry of Labour, who vide Notification under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication :

."Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in treating Smt. Anita Nandrajog as deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services w.e.f. 25.8.1989 is legal and justified; if not what relief she is entitled to?"

3.5. Before the Tribunal both the parties led their respective evidence, documentary as well as oral, and thereafter the Industrial Tribunal passed an award holding the order dated 25.8.1989 passed by the Bank of Baroda as illegal and unjustified.

4.6. Against the award of the Tribunal the respondent before us filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by the High Court and hence this appeal by the Bank by special leave.

5.7. The main contention on behalf of the respondent employee before the Tribunal and High Court was that she was not given any charge sheet nor was any inquiry held regarding her misconduct of being absent without leave, and hence the order dated 25.8.1989 was illegal being against the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the contention on behalf of the Bank was that no inquiry was necessary since clause 17

(b) of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989 was being invoked.

8. Clause 17(b) of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement is as follows :- "17. Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employee The earlier provision relating to the voluntary cessation of employment by the employee in the earlier settlement shall stand substituted by the following :

(a).....................

(b) When an employee goes abroad and (1) absents himself for a period of 150 days or more consecutive days without submitting any application for leave, or for its extension or (2) without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/subsequently or when there