Termination of employment upheld due to unauthorized absence exceeding 90 days, consistent with Bipartite Settlement provisions, despite claims of improper notice service.

1. The petitioner herein was an employee of the 2nd respondent State Bank of Hyderabad, Ernakulam Branch. She had entered the service of the said respondent Bank on 06/02/1984 as Clerk - Typist at their Ernakulam Branch. While so, she had availed ordinary leave for the period from 25/04/1988 to 24/05/1988 and had proceeded on sick leave on half - pay for the period from 25/05/1988 to 03/08/1988 and had yet again availed extra ordinary leave on loss of pay for the period from 04/08/1988 to 21/02/1989. On 22/02/1989, she had reported for duty and from the next day onwards, viz., 23/02/1989 onwards, she had entered on maternity leave upto 22/05/1989. There is no dispute on either side that the petitioner was sanctioned leave for the aforestated period commencing from 25/04/1988 upto 22/05/1989. Admittedly the petitioner had delivered her child in March, 1989. The petitioner claimed that she was unable to immediately join duty on expiry of the maternity leave on 22/05/1989 on the ground that she had undergone a major surgery in connection with the delivery. In this regard, she had applied for leave without allowances on medical grounds for the following periods:

It is also common ground that after the expiry of the sanctioned leave for the period upto 22/05/1989, the petitioner did not have any further leave to her credit as per the Leave Rules governing the field and that she was not sanctioned leave she had sought for, for the aforestated period commencing from 23/05/1989 upto February 1991 and thereafter. It is also common ground that the petitioner was most of the time in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia at her husband's place of employment during the aforestated period after 22/05/1989 and that she had not informed the respondent Bank that she had gone to Riyadh to be with her husband for the aforestated period and further that she had not obtained any prior permission from the respondent Bank authorities to go to the aforestated foreign country before she had left her place of employment. The Bank proceeded to take action against her in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause 17 of the Bipartite Settlement that governs the field and also in terms of the provisions contained in Clause XVI of the respondent Bank's Staff Circular issued in the 1984 in the matter of taking action for voluntary cession of employment by employees. Accordingly, the Bank had initially issued notice dated 07/03/1990 (which is discernible from page No. 27 of the Bank's official files produced before the Industrial Tribunal) by registered post with A/D, wherein the respondent Bank has stated that the petitioner was absenting from duty unauthorisedly since 23/05/1989 and that she is accordingly, directed to report for duty within three days of the receipt of the said memorandum dated 7th March, 1990 and explain the reasons for her absence. Since the petitioner had not responded to this, the Bank had later issued Ext. M - 3 memo dated 13/03/1990 by registered post with acknowledgment due pointing out the aforestated aspects and directing her to report for duty within a period of 30 days of the date of the said notice and that on her failure to do so, it will be deemed that she has voluntarily retired from service on the expiry of the said notice dated 13/03/1990, etc. The said Ext. M - 3 memo / notice 13/03/1990 has been issued by the Bank by taking recourse to the provisions contained in Clause 17 of the aforestated Bipartite Settlement, which governs the field. The aforestated memos / notices dated