https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288150 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. en-us Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2024 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288150 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288150