2000 (11) TMI 1262 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal granted, termination justified under settlement clause. Compliance emphasized in employment disputes.

The Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The termination was deemed justified ... - Issues:Challenge to termination order based on absence from duty, violation of principles of natural justice, interpretation of clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement.Analysis:1. The respondent challenged the termination order by the appellant-Bank, claiming a serious eye ailment led to frequent leaves. The High Court found the termination invalid due to lack of inquiry and violation of natural justice principles. The Court emphasized the need for due process before dismissing an employee, citing previous decisions supporting this view.2. The appellant argued that under clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement, termination without inquiry is permissible for prolonged unauthorized absences. Referring to a prior case, the appellant contended that such action does not violate natural justice principles. The respondent's counsel disagreed, stressing the importance of allowing the employee to present their case for a fair decision.3. Clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement allows management to end an employee's service if absent for 90+ days without explanation. The rule provides a chance for the employee to rejoin or explain the absence, failing which retirement is presumed. This clause aims to address prolonged absences effectively, with input from employees' unions.4. The Court found the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extended absence, contradicting claims of a serious eye ailment. The respondent's submissions lacked evidence of reporting for duty within the stipulated time, as required by the settlement clause. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the agreed-upon rules and addressing the factual context of each case.5. The Court concluded that the respondent's termination was justified under the settlement clause due to unexplained absence and failure to follow the prescribed procedure. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the case.