[2025:RJ-JD:35094]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1861/2003

1. State Bank Of India, Registered office at Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road,Mumbai.

2. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office No.2, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Udaipur.

2. Umesh Chandra Bhardwaj S/o Shri B.D. Bhardwaj, by caste Brahmin, resident of 324, Road No.L-1, Bhopalpura, Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bapna for Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Ms. Varsha Bissa for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

07/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed against award dated 13.01.2003 (Annex.12) passed by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Industrial Dispute No. 01/2000 whereby the reference as made stood allowed in favour of the claimant workman.

2. Vide award dated 13.01.2003, the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim petition of claimant-respondent No.2 held order dated 28.05.1997, vide which the workman was voluntarily retired, to be illegal and in contravention to law and as a consequence, held the claimant entitled for reinstatement in service. The claimant was also held entitled to the complete salary with effect from 06.02.1995 and to all the consequential benefits, including seniority.

3. The facts are that the petitioner who was appointed as a ‘Clerk cum Cashier’ with the petitioner Bank, was transferred from Udaipur to Nimbahera vide order dated 28.01.1995. Admittedly, respondent No.2 did not join in pursuance to the said transfer order on the count that no TA/DA was awarded to him qua the said transfer. Further, the petitioner, soon after transfer order dated 28.01.1995 been passed, continuously wrote to the authorities for issuance of traveling allowance as well as the arrears of his grade increments. The same was never awarded to him and hence, he did not join at Nimbahera.

4. The case of the petitioner Bank is that after order dated 28.01.1995 been passed, when claimant-respondent No.2 did not join at Nimbahera, several notices were served on him calling upon him to join. But no heed was paid by him and hence, vide last notice dated 19.04.1997 (Annex.6), he was called upon to join within a period of thirty days and in absence of the same, it was to be deemed that he has voluntarily retired.

5. Claimant-respondent No.2 did not join even after service of notice dated 19.04.1997 and hence, order impugned dated 28.05.1997 was passed and respondent No.2 was declared voluntarily retired.

6. A claim was then raised by the workman and in pursuance thereof, reference dated 11.11.1999 was made to the learned Tribunal, as under:

“ Whether the action of the manager of State Bank of India in issuing memorandum dated 28.5.97 to Shri Umesh Chandra Bhardwaj Assistant (Cash & Account) for deemed voluntarily retired from service on 6.2.95 is legal and justified? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

7. The case of claimant respondent No.2 is that after service of notice dated 19.04.1997, the petitioner very well intended to join at Nimbahera but while he was on the way to Nimbahera, he suffered a heart attack on 10.05.1997 and hence, could not join. He therefore moved an application to the petitioner Bank to extend the joining time but the same was not extended and order impugned dated 28.05.1997 was passed without any further notice to him in terms of Para XVI of the Bipartite Settlement governing the parties.

8. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that alleged transfer order dated 28.01.1995 was in fact not a transfer order, it was just a relieving order and further, it was passed by an authority not competent to do so. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings qua the said transfer order and held the same to be bad. As a consequence, order dated

28.05.1997