V.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Ashok Trivedi, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Bank are present.
(2.) By means of this present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated April 23, 2001 passed by the Labour Court, Kanpur, respondent No. 1 arising out of the Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1999 seeking reinstatement in service on the post held by him with all consequential benefits of continuity of service along with arrears of salary and promotion.
(3.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a probationary clerk with the respondent-Bank in the year 1980 and thereafter he was confirmed in the service during the year 1981. The petitioner was posted at Jeoni Mandi Agra Branch of the Bank. The petitioner remained absent from duty without leave since November 12, 1991. He was asked vide notice dated May 13, 1992 by the respondent-Bank to join the services within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said notice. The petitioner reported for (sic) duty on June 11, 1992 within 30 days. The petitioner again remained absent without leave from the Bank w.e.f. June 21, 1992. A notice dated September 8, 1992 was issued to the petitioner, directing him to report on duty within 30 days from the date of publication of the notice and submit an explanation for unauthorized absence, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. This notice is alleged to have been published on the Notice Board of the Bank on September 9, 1992. The said notice was served on the petitioner on September 14, 1992 by a registered post. The petitioner reported on duty well within the period of 30 days from September 14, 1992. Instead of permitting the petitioner to join the duty, the Branch Manager issued a communication dated October 12, 1992 to the petitioner mentioning therein that, since the joining report of the petitioner was beyond 30 days from the date of publication of its notice on the Notice Board of the Bank, he would not be allowed to join and also the reason of his absence was unacceptable, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Subsequently, vide order dated November 28, 1992 passed by the General Manager of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank, in view of the Clause 17 of the V Bi-partite Settlement dated April 10, 1989 (hereinafter referred to aA the Settlement) (quoted in counter-affidavit dated September 22, 2001 of the respondent-Bank), dealing with circumstances under which the employment of an employee was treated as voluntary cessation of the employment.;