AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1 The challenge in the present petition is to the Award dated May 27, 2008 (Annexure-P-10), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, vide which the reference made on a dispute raised by the petitioner/workman (for Short "the Workman") stands answered against him, holding there that the Workman is not entitled to any relief.

2 Counsel for the Workman contends that the Workman was appointed as a Clerk-Cum-Cashier and joined as such with the respondent/Management (for short "the Management") on February 22, 1986. He proceeded on leave to Lucknow with permission with effect from August 24, 1995, but fell ill, so he requested for extension of leave upto September 20, 1995. His illness prolonged, so he sought further extension of leave upto June 12, 1996 and so on. No reply was received by the Workman from the Management on his application for grant of leave and, therefore, he presumed that the leave had been granted by the Management. However, on January 12, 1996, he received a telegram intimating him that he was absenting unauthorisedly and he should resume duty immediately.

3 He responded by way of filing reply and explaining his absence from duty because of medical ground and ultimately he had been retired voluntarily from service of the Management with effect from May 3, 1996 as per paragraph 17(a) of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement . He contends that the termination of services of the Workman is illegal as no chargesheet, inquiry or show cause notice was issued nor had the provisions as contained under Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short "the Act") been complied with. He on this basis submits that the Award dated May 27, 2008 (Annexure-P-10), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, deserves to be set aside and the Workman be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

4 I have heard counsel for the Workman and have gone through the records of the case.

5 The Workman was a Bank employee and, therefore, his service conditions are covered by Bipartite Settlement, which has been entered into between the Bank Management and Union under the Act. Para 17 (a) of the 5th Bipartite Settlement dated April 10, 1989 provides for voluntary cessation of employment by the employer and the same reads as follows:

"When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 980 days 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 where there is 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 iast known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of 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 an 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 he has no intention of not joining duties, the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the banks 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 expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the banks right to take any action under the law or rules of service."

6 The Workman remained unauthorisedly absent from Bank duty with effect from August 24, 1995 till May 3, 1996, when he was, as per above mentioned paragraph 17 (a) of the 5th Bipartite Se