Voluntary retirement for prolonged unauthorised absence upheld where settlement clause governed and repeated notices satisfied natural justice.

A bipartite settlement clause permitting treatment of prolonged unauthorised absence as voluntary retirement was applied according to its plain terms. On the facts, the workman failed to resume duty after leave expired, did not provide a satisfactory explanation or valid medical support, and repeatedly ignored notices to join duty. The Court held that the settlement created a complete mechanism for dealing with such absence, that repeated opportunities satisfied natural justice, and that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was not required. The bank's invocation of the clause was therefore valid, and the decision treating the workman as voluntarily retired was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bank was entitled to invoke clause 2 of the bipartite settlement and treat the workman as having voluntarily retired on account of prolonged unauthorized absence without holding a full-fledged departmental inquiry.

Analysis: The settlement was an admitted document and clause 2 created a complete mechanism for dealing with absence beyond the stipulated period. On the facts, the workman did not resume duty after expiry of leave, did not furnish a satisfactory explanation or valid medical support, and repeatedly failed to respond to notices calling upon him to join duty. The Court held that the settlement had to be applied according to its plain terms and that the management's action was supported by the legal fiction contained in the clause. It further held that the requirements of natural justice were met by the repeated opportunities given to the workman, and that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was not necessary in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The invocation of clause 2 of the bipartite settlement was valid, and the bank's decision treating the workman as voluntarily retired could not be faulted.

---