IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (I) CWP-7572-2013 Reserved on: 16.09.2025 Pronounced on: 04.12.2025 Uploaded on: 09.12.2025 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA -PETITIONER VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH AND ANR.

-RESPONDENTS (II) CWP-14094-2013 DARSHAN SINGH -PETITIONER V/S STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-7572-2013) and for the respondent No.1 (in CWP-14094-2013).

Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-14094-2013) and for the respondent No.2 (in CWP-7572-2013).

***

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. The amenability of both these writ petitions for being decided through a common verdict generates from theirs encompassing challenge to a common award dated 23.06.2010, whereby the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Tribunal”) has set aside the termination order of the workman/Darshan Singh and directed the management/State Bank of India to reinstate him within one month from the date of publication of the award. The management was, however, granted liberty to conduct a regular inquiry regarding unauthorized absence of the workman. To be precise, CWP-7572- 2013 has been instituted by the management being aggrieved by the reference becoming answered in favour of the workman, while CWP-14094- 2013 has been instituted by the workman seeking enforcement of the impugned award.

2. In essence, the entire controversy inhering these writ petitions hinges upon the authority of the management to terminate the services of the workman, who absented himself from service for a long duration of time. In the case at hand, the workman’s continuous absence for 90 consecutive days led the management to invoke Clause 17 of the 5^th Bipartite Settlement to declare him “deemed to be voluntarily retired w.e.f. 26.01.1999”, vide order dated 08.02.1999.

3. Learned counsel for the management contends that the reference has been answered in favour of the workman solely on the ground that no inquiry was conducted. It is contended that the impugned award is legally untenable because Clause 17 expressly empowers the management to deem an employee voluntarily retired upon his absence exceeding 90 consecutive days without leave or intimation. The case at hand is voluntary abandonment of services by the workman, and hence the management was not under any statutoruy obligation to conduct an inquiry, particularly when the workman was served with the statutory notice to join duty. Therefore, the principles of natural justice stand complied with, and the action taken in terms of Clause 17 is legally unimpeachable.

4. To lend vigour to his arguments, learned counsel for the management places reliance upon the judgment dated 08.05.2023, rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA-1274-2013 (State Bank of Patiala and others vs. Bhagwan Dass Ahuja), wherein it has been held that the direction to hold an enquiry is to be given keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and in all cases, the rules of natural justice cannot be made strictly applicable and that too by ignoring the relevant facts of a particular case and rules and circulars governing the service. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment dated 25.04.2000, drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Syndicate Bank vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another”, 2000 AIR (Supreme Court) 2198, wherein it has been held that no inquiry is required where services are terminated by operation of the bipartite settlement treating long unauthorized absence as voluntary retirement.

5. Finally, learned counsel for the management contends that the Industrial Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute pertained to voluntary cessation o