The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the relevant clauses of the Bipartite Settlements and the condemnation of the appellant Bank's attempt to mislead the court.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. The appellant-Bank has filed this appeal against the judgment of the first Appellate Court, which has reversed the judgment passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent employee. The appellant-Bank with vast resources at its command would not hesitate to contest any claim whether justified or not. Appellant-Bank would plead that following substantial question of law would emerge in this case:-

"(i) Whether the action of the Appellant-Bank was valid as per the standing order?

(ii) Whether the action of the Appellant-Bank in voluntarily retiring the respondent-plaintiff was valid?

(iii) Whether the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court was barred under law?

(iv) Whether the relief can be given beyond pleadings and in the absence of the challenge to the standing order/regulations?

2. None of these, however, were pressed into service at the time of issuing notice of motion. At that time, reliance was placed only on the judgment in the case of R.Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 951 to submit that even if it is assumed that one part of the impugned order qua the retrospective retirement of the respondent was bad, it was not apparent from the other part of the order that it could not be independently faulted. While issuing notice of motion, this Court, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, the grounds regarding validity of the action as per the standing order or the validity of the order voluntarily retiring the respondent-plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being barred or that the relief beyond the pleadings etc. were never pressed into service. Even now at the time of arguments, the only ground pressed before me is about the validity of the voluntary retirement order in terms of the standing order on the basis of Bipartite Settlements.

3. First the facts in brief to get the hang of the issue may be noticed.

4. The respondent-plaintiff had joined the services of the appellant on 10.11.1987 as Messenger and on completion of probation had become permanent and regular employee of the appellant Bank. He could not attend to his duties w.e.f 1.8.1999 as he was advised rest on account of ailment. After recovery from illness, he submitted his joining report alongwith his medical certificates but was not allowed to join duties by the appellant Bank. The appellant would plead that the respondent-plaintiff was directed to join duties through order dated 28.12.1999 within 30 days and was also cautioned that in the event of failure to do so, he would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service after expiry of the notice period. Another letter was initiated on 10.2.2000, through which the respondent-plaintiff was informed that since he had failed to join duties by 28.1.2000, he stood voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 29.1.2000 in view of the deeming provisions in this regard. He was also asked to deposit salary of 14 days with the Bank. Strangely he received another communication dated 9.5.2000 informing that he was considered voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 1.8.1999.

5. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly had impugned the orders dated 28.12.1999, 10.2.2000, 19.4.2000 and 9.5.2000 on various grounds to plead that the orders have been passed without application of mind. The plea raised is that he was specifically informed through order dated 28.12.1999 that he would be deemed to be retired within 30 days of the expiry of notice but again through communication dated 10.2.2000 and 19.4.2000, he was considered to have voluntarily retired from service on 29.1.2000 and yet again, he was informed that he would be deemed to have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 1.8.1999 through a communication dated 9.5.2000. The respondent-plaintiff would also make reference to the fact that he had received a letter on 19.4.2000, requiring him to join camp for promotion w.e.f 24.4.2000 to 29.4.2000. He would accordingly plead that order of vol