logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MPHC 339 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 19765 Of 2011
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Parties : B.R. Mishra Versus The Dy. General Manager, State Bank Of India
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Chandrahas Dubey, Advocate. For the Respondent: None.
Date of Judgment : 30-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226/227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MPHC-JBP 78520,
Judgment :-

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India challenging order passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) Jabalpur dated 06.09.2011 (Annexure-P/1) by which claim of petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that order passed by CGIT is arbitrary, illegal and based on wrong assumption of facts.

Petitioner has informed about his illness but his application was not considered. Petitioner could not be treated to be voluntarily relied by the Bank. Petitioner has wrongly been treated to be voluntarily retired. Petitioner was mentally sick, therefore, he was unable to perform his duty. It is also submitted that petitioner was engaged as Farras-cum-Messenger on 31.03.1973 and petitioner was posted SBI Saleha Branch when incident of unauthorized absence took place. Petitioner was absent from 08.02.1992. Bank treated petitioner to be voluntarily retired on 09.08.1993. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that medical certificate and leave application were filed. Information was given on 22.10.1992, therefore, order passed by Bank is bad in law. Petitioner is entitled for grant of leave for period of absence and impugned order may be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to join service.

3. None appeared for respondent Bank.

4. Learned the counsel for petitioner.

5. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) Jabalpur while passing the award dated 06.09.2011 has taken into consideration Clause-16 of bipartite settlement between management and employee. As per said settlement, if any employee goes on leave without there being leave available in the account for 90 days or more and management is satisfied that workman may not return on duty and notice is sent to him for returning to duty within period of 30 days and despite that employee does not return on duty or give its clarification then management will treat employee to be voluntarily retired.

6. In present case, it is found that letter was sent by wife of petitioner and medical certificate dated 23.09.1992 in which it was mentioner that petitioner is suffering from chest pain on 16.09.1992 to 23.09.1992. Petitioner became fit to join duty on 24.09.1992 even then workman did not join duty nor file any application for unauthorized absence. Notices were sent on different dates but petitioner did not appear nor join duty within period of 30 days. Since, notices were not received, therefore, publication was also made in newspaper Navbharat and workman did not appear to join duty within period of 30 days, therefore, respondents had acted in accordance with Clause-16. Petitioner is changing the causes of his sickness. Petitioner says he is mentally sick, his wife says he is suffering from Jaundice then again petitioner changed the cause of his sickness which creates doubt whether petitioner was actually suffering from any sickness or not. Respondents had taken action in accordance with law following Clause-16 of bipartite agreement.

7. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that there is no procedural error. Respondent management had acted in accordance with bipartite agreement and CGIT has considered the same. Pleas of petitioner and evidences were also taken into consideration and, thereafter, award has been passed. No interference is called for, writ petition is dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal