1. The petitioner Bank in this writ petition impugns the award dated 8th August, 2002 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the action of the petitioner Bank of treating the respondent no.2 workman to have voluntarily retired from the services of the petitioner Bank with effect from 30th April, 1993 to be unjust, illegal and unfair and quashing the same and further holding the respondent workman to be entitled to continuity of service in the petitioner Bank with full back wages and all consequential benefits. This Court vide ex parte order dated 10th January, 2003, while issuing notice of the petition stayed the operation of the award subject to the petitioner Bank depositing 50% of the back wages in this Court and which amount was directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. Pursuant to the said direction a sum of Rs.6,66,123.07p was deposited in this Court. The respondent workman applied for release of the said amount. This Court vide order dated 3rd April, 2003 permitted the release of a sum of Rs.66,000/- only to the respondent workman without furnishing any security. Subsequently, vide order dated 2nd September, 2004 the balance amount was also directed to be released in favour of the respondent workman subject to his furnishing the security. Though a security bond was filed by the respondent workman and to which objections were preferred by the petitioner Bank, but the respondent workman failed to take steps thereafter and as such the balance amount remains deposited in this Court. The respondent workman also applied under Section 17B of the I.D. Act and which application was allowed vide order dated 30th March, 2006. The respondent workman filed an affidavit undertaking to this Court, to in the event of this writ petition succeeding, refund to the petitioner Bank the excess amount received over and above the last drawn wages. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

2. The action aforesaid against the respondent workman was taken by the petitioner Bank in accordance with a clause in the Bipartite Agreement between the Indian Banks’ Association and the Bank employees and which Clause is as under:

"When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days, without submitting any application for leave or 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 inter alia 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 or gives any explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation 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."

3. The Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 has held that even where the Standing Orders of the employer provide for dismissal from service for unexplained absence, the same has to be read with the principles of natural justice and without conducting domestic inquiry and without giving an opportunity of being heard, termination of service on the said ground cannot be effected. Recently