https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303114 The Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The termination was deemed justified under clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement due to unexplained absence and failure to follow the prescribed procedure. The respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged absence, contradicting claims of a serious eye ailment. The Court emphasized compliance with agreed-upon rules and factual context consideration in such cases. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:55:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303114 The Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and dismissing the respondent's writ petition. The termination was deemed justified under clause XVI of IV Bipartite Settlement due to unexplained absence and failure to follow the prescribed procedure. The respondent failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged absence, contradicting claims of a serious eye ailment. The Court emphasized compliance with agreed-upon rules and factual context consideration in such cases. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303114