The validity of termination notices under a bipartite settlement is determined by the operative clauses at the time of the notices, and subsequent settlements do not necessarily affect the validity of the termination.

ORDER

1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The respondent joined the services of the appellant - Bank as Messenger on 10.11.1987. He completed the period of probation and was conferred the status of a regular employee. The respondent was intermittently absent from duty for a long period from 04.12.1990 to the year 1996. On 28.12.1997, the appellant granted leave for 682 days and also inflicting minor punishment of censure with no annual grade increment for the period of leave.

3. The respondent again absented from duty from 01.08.1999. A notice was served by the appellant to the respondent at his recorded address on 21.09.1999, directing to resume his duties within three days. His explanation for unauthorised absence was also sought.

4. Since the respondent neither joined duty nor submitted any explanation, a second notice by Registered Post was sent to the respondent, calling upon him to resume his duties within four days along with explanation for unauthorised absence. The respondent did not respond to the second notice as well.

5. On 08.11.1999, a third notice by Registered Post was sent to the respondent directing him to resume his duties within three days and also submit the reasons for his absence, but again without any result.

6. It was on 28.12.1999, a fourth notice by Registered Post was sent to the respondent calling upon him to resume his duties within 30 days, failing which he shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service. Such notice was in terms of 5th Bipartite Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the Management of number of Banks, including the appellant-Bank, and their workmen on 10.04.1989.

7. Clause 17 of the said Bipartite Settlement reads thus :-

'17. Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employees

The earlier provisions relating to the voluntary cessation of employment by the employee in the earlier settlements shall stand substituted by the following:-

a) When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days, without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or when the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties, the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice, stating interalia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence, where available unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days of the notice given an explanation for this absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or a vocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties, the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service.

b) xxxxx

c) xxxxx'

8. An information was sent on 10.02.2000 informing the respondent that since he had failed to report to duty on 28.01.2000 i.e. within 30 days of the fourth notice, he is deemed to have voluntarily retired on 29.01.2000.

9. Another notice was sent to the respondent on 19.04.2000 reiterating that the respondent is deemed to have voluntarily retired from service on 29.01.2000. Another information was sent to the respondent on 09.05.2000 informing him that he stands