LexREGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA versus ANITA NANDRAJOG
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1073
REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA
A
.-A,.
v.
ANITA NANDRAJOG
..
(Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2004)
SEPTEMBER 1, 2009
8
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
y
.• '
LABOUR LAW:
c
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Fifth Bipartite Settlement
dated 10-4-1989; Clause 17(b) - Bank employee remained
absent without leave for very long period - Bank invoked
Cl.17(b) of Fifth Bipartite Settlement and issued notice to her
*
to report for duty within 30 days - Employee did not report for D
duty - Bank terminated her service by treating her as having
' .
voluntarily retired from service - Action of Bank challenged
- Held: Challenge not tenable - Behavior of employee was
highly improper - No establishment can function if it allows
its employees to behave in such a manner - Service Law .,...
E
- Misconduct.
Respondent was an accounts clerk in a bank. She
f-
remained absent without leave for very long period.
;
Appellant-Bank invoked Cl.17(b) of Fifth Bipartite
Settlement dated 10-4-1989 and issued notice to her to
F
...
report for duty within 30 days. Respondent did not report
4
for duty. Appellant-Bank terminated her service by
treating her as having voluntarily retired from service.
The Industrial Tribunal held that the order passed by the
Bank was illegal and unjustified. The order was upheld
G
by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
,.)(
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The management had been extremely
H
1073
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A lenient to the respondent by condoning her absef.lce on
- ,)....
the first occasion from 4.8.1986 to 29.3.1987 that ;,s for a
period of over seven months when she was ~absent
"
without leave, and then again from 20.7.1987 to 10.4.1988
that is for a period of about seven months. Thus the
B respondent was absent for a very long period without
leave. The bank taking a lenient view condoned the
absence without leave. However, it seems {that the
y
respondent thought that she could do whatever she liked
, ..
and remain absent whenever she liked for whatever
c period she liked. She again sent an application dated
22.8.1988 for leave for 60 days, which was not
sanctioned. However, she remained absent without leave
and she ~ept sending letters for extension of leave
although she was on unauthorized absence. [Paras 9 and
D 1 O] (1079-C-F]
~
1.2. In the Bank's letter dated 26.6.1989, 'it is clearly
.
·~
mentioned .that the respondent did not havf! any leave
. remaining to he!' credit and she had remained on
unauthorized leave for a period of more than 150 days
E continuously and it appeared that she has ino intention
of joining duty. She w?..e :.z~ed to report for duty within
30 days, failing which it would be deemed t:hat she has
-f
taken voluntarily retirement from service. In reply she
wrote a letter dated 27.7.1989 that she will be joining duty
~
F by the last week of August, 1989, but again she wrote
•
another letter dated 22.8.1989 for extension of leave till
April, 1990 on account of domestic problem!;. Such a
behavior on the part of an employee is clearly unfortunate
and highly improper. [Para 11] (1079-F-H; 1080-A]
_,.
G
2. Under clause 17(b) ofthe Fifth Bipartite Settlement
dated 10-4-1989, it is clear that if an employee is absent
'!<..
without leave for more than 150 days and has no more
leave to his/her credit then the Bank can validly order
H voluntary cessation of employment. Also, under clause
REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA v. ANITA1075
NANDRAJOG
~-
17(b), when the management is reasonably satisfied that
A
.
the employee has no intention of joining duty, it may call
upon the employee to report for duty within 30 days
.,.
failing which action could be taken under clause 17(b) .
In the present case such a notice was given by the Bank
on 26.6.1989 but the respondent wanted leave till April,
B
1990 i.e. for another eight months. It is thus clear that she
had no intention of resuming duty within 30 days. Hence
'¥
the action of the Bank in terminating her service on the
.,. .
ground of voluntary cessation of employment was valid.
[Para 12] [1080-A-D)
c
3. The subsequent clarification of the Fifth Bipartite
Settlement in 1990 is in fact an amendment to the earlier
clause 17(b) and hence will have no retrospective effect
in the absence of any express intention to that effect. The
~
termination order wasExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.