ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of award dated 23.10.2013 passed by learned Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No.CGIT/LC/R/243/97 rejecting the claim of the petitioner Chandrashekhar for reinstatement in service.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding in Paragraph No.12 of the impugned award that since bipartite settlement was complied with, therefore, it will be deemed to be voluntary cessation of the employment by the employee. Reading from the extract of the impugned award, it is evident that there is non-compliance of the provision, which has been recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, yet the Industrial Tribunal chose to overlook this vital fact, which is evident even from record as on today and, therefore, the impugned award suffers for arbitrariness, illegality and perversity and is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent after perusing the original record submits that the notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.12.1994 as is marked as Exhibit M-18/B and once the notice was issued, the compliance will deem to be made.

4. Before adverting to the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be proper to refer to the relevant Clause of the bipartit settlement, which reads as under:-

"Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the employee. 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 to 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 thirty 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 thirty days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the said period of thirty 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 thirty 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."

5. Thus, it is evident that three things are required to be proved to deem that there is voluntary cessation of employment, namely, (1) absence of the employee from work (2) issuance of notice asking him to join within thirty days of receipt of the notice and (3) failure to comply with the notice.

6. The first notice Exhibit M-18 was issued to the petitioner on 6.10.1994, which says that he was unauthorizedly absent for twenty-one days in the last month. After the cleaning was done by the petitioner Chandrashekhar on 28.9.1994, four dead rats were found in the premises indicating his negligence. He was asked to furnish his satisfactory explanation failing which recommendations will be made to the Regional Office for taking disciplinary action against him. The notice dated 6.10.1994 was probably served on the petitioner on 10.10.1994 as is evident from the acknowledgment card marked as Exhibit M-21. The postal receipt in this