The enforcement of attendance notices must allow employees to report within the stipulated timeframe, and management's failure to comply with procedural safeguards can render termination actions unlawful.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the award dated 23.07.2008 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, whereby the learned Presiding Officer has upheld the decision of the Deputy General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office for not allowing Mr. Pramajit Singh Girgla, Ex. Clerk-cum-Cashier, Punjab and Sind Bank, Hemkunt Colony Branch to join his duties on 07.08.1996 in response to the bank's first notice dated 06.07.1996. The learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II further held that in terms of Clause 17 of the Bipartite Settlement (BPS) dated 10.04.1989, the action of the Respondent Bank was proper and justified in voluntarily retiring the Petitioner from the services of the Bank with effect from 26.11.1996.

2. Before taking note of the submissions made by the respective counsels for the parties, the facts arising out of the records leading to the present petition need to be mentioned and analyzed. In the present case, the Petitioner was appointed as apprentice at Punjab & Sind Bank, Janak Puri Branch, New Delhi vide letter No. Staff CA/1917 dated 23.05.1978 issued by Manager Personnel, Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. (Regd Office, Hall Bazar, Amritsar). Later, the Petitioner was transferred to Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi. In view of the Petitioner's unauthorized absence from duty, a notice dated 06.07.1996 was issued to him by the Bank directing him to report on duty within 30 days of the receipt of the said notice or provide an explanation of his absence otherwise he will be deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the services of the Respondent Bank on the expiry of the period of the said notice. The said notice was issued to the Petitioner on 06.07.1996 but was posted on 09.07.1996. Therefore, it is apparent that the said notice would have been received by the Petitioner on or after 09.07.1996. On 07.08.1996, i.e. within the period of 30 days, the Petitioner approached the Respondent Bank with an application seeking to join back his duties but he was not permitted to do so.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner, vide letter dated 09.08.1996, again sought permission to join his duties and submitted that he could not report on duty earlier due to viral fever and back pain and was under treatment till 05.08.1996. The Respondent Bank, vide letter dated 14.08.1996, replied to the Petitioner to submit proof of his illness from 17.06.1994 to 05.08.1996 for considering his request for allowing him to join his duties. The Petitioner sent a legal notice dated 27.08.1996 for withdrawing the notice dated 06.07.1996 issued by the Respondent Bank and to reinstate the Petitioner back in service from the day of his termination with full service benefits. On 12.09.1996, the Petitioner filed a Suit No.544/1996 before the Civil Court and the same was dismissed by learned trial court vide its judgment dated 28.01.1998 on the ground of not being maintainable and premature. Another notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent Bank on 07.10.1996 directing him to explain his unauthorized absence within 30 days of receipt of the notice, otherwise, he will be deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the services of the Bank on the expiry of the period of the said notice. In the absence of any response from the Petitioner to the Notice dated 07.10.1996 issued by the Respondent Bank, the Petitioner