Case: Syndicate Bank Vs. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Stff Association and Another

4. In 1975 Dayananda was appointed ason probation in the Bank. Subsequently he was confirmed. In November, 1983 he was transferred to Cottonpet Branch of the Bank where he was to join his duty on or before April 3, 1984. He was relieved from the Bench, where he was working, on March 31, 1984 on his transfer to Cottonpet Branch. From April 1, 1984 to December, 1985 out of 628 working days Dayananda worked only for 46 days. Dayananda did not report for duty on April 3, 1984. On June 4, 1984 Bank sent him a registered notice advising him to report for duty within three days and also requiring him to submit his explanation for his unauthorised absence. Dayananda sent a leave letter requesting to treat his absence as leave on health grounds and he assured he would report for duty on July 11, 1984. He did not do so. On July 9, 1984 Dayananda sent in his resignation from the Bank. He resignation was accepted on August 27, 1984. Subsequently Dayananda withdrew his resignation and requested the Bank to allow him to continue in the service on humanitarian grounds. This was accepted by the Bank by letter dated December 3, 1984 subject to certain conditions with which presently we are not concerned. Dayananda then joined the Cottonpet Branch of the Bank. He attended duty up to December 22, 1984, and thereafter he absented. Afterwards he applied for leave from December 23, 1984 to January 5, 1985. Bank sent Dayananda a notice to attend his duty. In reply he requested for grant of further leave. Dayananda attended duty from April 1, 1985 to April 6, 1985 and then again absented himself. He applied for leave up to May 27, 1985. The leave was not sanctioned by the Bank and he was communicated of the decision. Still Dayananda did not report for duty. On May 16, 1985 Bank sent a notice to Dayananda about this unauthorised absence. On November 19, 1985 the Bank invoked Clause 16 of the IV Bipartite Settlement between the Management of the Bank and the employees. Now the Bank called upon Dayananda to show cause for his continued absence and to report back for work by December 19, 1985 failing which he would be deemed to have been voluntarily retired from the services of the Bank for his continued absence from April 8, 1985. This notice was sent by registered post to Dayananda but it was returned with the report of the postal authority that he refused to receive the same.By order dated December 19, 1985 by virtue of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement as aforesaid the Bank treated Dayananda as having voluntarily abandoned his services. This order of the Bank was similarly sent to Dayananda under registered cover but was returned with the endorsement of the postal authority "not found during delivery time". Matter rested at that for three years. In September, 1988 Dayananda gave representation to the Bank for joining duty. He was told that he had abandoned his services with effect from April 8, 1985 and there was no question of his now joining the duty. Industrial dispute was raised by first respondent which led the Central Government to make the reference to the Tribunal for adjudication.6. Both the parties filed their respective statements of claim before the Tribunal. While Bank examined its Manager as its witness, Dayananda appeared for himself. During the course of evidence of the Manager of the Bank relevant registered covers and the notices sent to Dayananda were brought orTribunal was of the view that since the Bank did not examine the postman that Dayananda in fact refused to receive the notice, it could not be said that there was service of notice to Dayananda. From this Tribunal was of the view that the Bank could not under these circumstances invoke the provisions of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement and on that score alone reinstatement of Dayananda had to be ordered. Then relying on a decision of this Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993)3 SCC 259  : 1993(3) SCT 537 (SC) the Tribunal took the view that since no inquiry was held by the Bank before terminating the services of Dayananda the action of the Bank was illegal. By this Award Tribunal though directed reinstatement of Dayananda with continuity in service, it declined to grant him further relief like back wages.Now the Bank was aggrieved. It filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Karnataka which, as noted above, was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated June 25, 1998.Still dissatisfied the Bank went in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench did not go into the merits of the case and just by referring to the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal. That is how the matter is now before us.

Reasoning: . In these circumstances Tribunal thought it necessary to hold that notice was not served on Dayananda as the Bank did not examine the postman. The notice was sent on the correct address of Dayananda and it was received back with the postal endorsement "refused". A clear presumption arose in favour of the Bank and against Dayananda. Yet the Tribunal held that no notice was given to Dayananda as postman was not produced by the Bank. This appears to us to be rather an incongruous finding by the Tribunal. Unfortunately, High Court did not go into this question at all. Considering the conduct of Dayananda all this period and after three years of his having voluntarily retired from the Bank in terms of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement his statement that he did not receive the notice was a sheer lie. His whole edifice was built on falsehood and yet the Tribunal was there to give him relief on the platter though at the same time criticised his conduct during his employment with theBank has followed the requirements of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. It rightly held that Dayananda has voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank. Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the Bank to hold any inquiry before passing the order. An inquiry would have been necessary if Dayananda had submitted his explanation which was not acceptable to the Bank or contended that he did report for duty but was not allowed to join by the Bank. Nothing of the like has happened here. Assuming for a moment that inquiry was necessitated, evidence led before the Tribunal clearly showed that notice was given to Dayananda and it is he who defaulted and offered no explanation of his absence from duty and did not report for duty within 30 days of the notice as required in Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement.18. This undue reliance on the principles of natural justice by the Tribunal and even by the High Court has certainly led to miscarriage of justice as far as Bank is concerned. Conduct of Dayananda as an employee of the Bank has been astounding. It was not a case where the Tribunal should have given any relief to Dayananda and yet the Bank was directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and mercifully the latter part of the relief High Court struck down. There was no occasion for the Tribunal to direct that Dayananda be instated in service or for the High Court not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the Award.High Court has noticed that since September, 26, 1994 Dayananda had been paid wages in terms of Sectionof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the matter came to this Court on special leave petition, while issuing notice on February 8, 1999 it was ordered "Status quo regarding implementation of the order of the High Court as existing today to continue till further orders". It is not clear how long Dayananda has been paid his wages.