- (1.) The Respondent joined the services of the Petitioner, which is a Co-operative Bank, on 1st October 1985. On 6th October 1992, he was posted at the Mulund branch of the Bank. After resuming duty for one day, the Respondent remained absent without leave from 7th to 24th October 1992. He resumed duties on 28th October 1992 and submitted a leave application. For a short while, he was asked to report at the branch at Golibar and was thereafter required to report for duty at the Mulund Branch on 9th November 1992. After working at the Mulund branch from 11th to 14th November 1992, the Respondent remained absent without intimation from 16th to 28th November 1992. He resumed on 30th November 1992 and submitted a leave application. On and from 2nd December 1992, the Respondent remained absent without leave and without any intimation to the employer. The employer addressed letters to the Respondent on 5th December 1992, 15th February 1993, 14th June 1993 and 26th June 1993 calling upon him to resume duty. By a final notice dated 26th June 1993 which was served by Registered A.D., the Respondent was informed that if he failed to report for duty, the Bank would presume that he had no desire to resume and that he had voluntarily abandoned service. The receipt of the letter was duly acknowledged, in spite of which, the Respondent did not resume work. On 14th July 1993, the Bank informed the Respondent that was presumed to have voluntarily abandoned service and that his name had been struck off from the muster rolls.
(2.) The Respondent wrote a letter dated 26th October 1993 making demand for reinstatement under Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and eventually filed an application under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act before the Labour Court on 7th February 1994. The Petitioner filed its Written Statement. Evidence was adduced on behalf of the parties before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its order sated 1st December 2000 allowed the application and granted reinstatement with back wages. The matter was carried in appeal and by an order dated 19th August 2003, the order of the Labour Court was confirmed by the Industrial Court.
(3.) On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been submitted that despite successive letters written by the Bank on 5th December 1992, 15th February 1993, 14th June 1993 and 26th June 1993, the Respondent failed to report for work. The period of absence had commenced from 2nd December 1992 and it was only after the Respondent failed to respond to the letters and to report for work for nearly seven months that the Bank informed him on 14th July 1993 that he had abandoned service. Counsel submitted that the evidence showed that there was no response by the Respondent to various letters and that he had remained absent without leave or permission. The case of the Respondent that he had asked a neighbour to deliver a letter to the Manager of the Bank was, it has been submitted, exfacie false. The Labour Court has, it was urged, observed that no credence could be placed on the case of the Respondent that the letter of the Respondent had been delivered to the Manager of the Bank particularly having regard to the fact that the witness who deposed on his behalf was unable to state the date and time of the delivery of the letter and there was no acknowledgment.;