JUDGMENT

Per J.NISHA BANU, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/employees union as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.10.2019 in W.P.No.10069 of 2017, whereby, the claim of Mrs.Shanthi Radhakrishnan for grant of pensionary benefits was negatived by this court and confirmed the impugned Award dated 11.05.2016.

2. Mrs.Shanthi Radhakrishnan joined the services of the 2nd respondent Bank as Clerk on 12.06.1982. On 08.01.2007, Extraordinary Leave Scheme was introduced. She applied for grant of extraordinary leave for 3 years. On

31.10.2007, leave was sanctioned.

3. On 27.04.2010, second option for pension to those who not have exercised option earlier, pursuant to pension scheme of the year 1995, was arrived.

4. Mrs.Shanthi opted for pension scheme and the said option was accepted by the Bank. On 25.10.2010, the employee applied for extension of leave for three months. On 27.12.2010, she applied for voluntary retirement from service. The extension of leave applied for by the employee was rejected.

5. On 25.06.2011, the Bank issued an order stating that the concerned employee had voluntarily left the services. An internal appeal was filed to treat the voluntary service of the employee as compulsorily retirement from service, enabling her to get the pensionary benefits.

6. Since the above said appeal was not considered, employees union raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai. The industrial dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal. The tribunal rejected the dispute. As against the dismissal of ID, employees union filed Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, confirmed the findings of the award by extracting paragraph No.10 that by notice, bank asked the employee to return for duty within 30 days in terms of Clause-33 of the Bipartite Settlement; she failed to join duty; one more notice dated 03.05.2011 was issued to her, again asking to join duty within 30 days; still she failed to comply; thereafter the Bank has issued order dated 25.06.2011 informing her that in terms of Clause-33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement she has voluntarily left the services of the Bank and vacated employment in the Bank from the date of the letter.

7. The learned Single Judge further observed the respondent counsel submission that an employee who is totally disinterested in continuing the employment, cannot be conferred with the pensionary benefits. Further, the learned Single Judge quoted decision of the Supreme Court that wherever the Rules provide resignation, amounts to forfeiture of the services, then, an employee, who resigned his job, which was accepted by the authority competent, cannot claim any pensionary benefits under the Rules.

8. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel for the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge filed this appeal by raising a ground that the learned Single Judge failed to answer the very question of law as to whether non-acceptance of application for Voluntary Retirement and extension of leave application can be treated as desertion by the management to voluntarily terminate the services of the employee without even complying with principles of natural justice.

9. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant would contend that the concerned employee could not report for duty and attend office on completion of sanctioned extraordinary leave only due to her ill-health and not otherwise which fact was not denied by the Respondent Bank and that the employee applied for extension of leave before the sanctioned extraordinary leave was subsisting and therefore, the Bank's act of termination of the employee from the services unilaterally is nothing but an vindictive act. He would further submit that similar requests for voluntary retirement of workmen who are similarly placed had been accepted by the Bank in the past and so, treating the employee in the case on hand differently would amount to denial of justice and unfair labour pract