JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner-workman, who is an employee of Canara Bank by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the award of the Central Government-cum-Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dated 13th September, 1996, passed in Industrial Dispute No. 213 of 1990, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'10' to the writ petition.
The following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication ;
"Whether the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank was Justified in voluntary retiring Sri Jawahar Singh Clerk Hathras Branch w.e.f. 8.12.1988? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. In short the case set up by the workman concerned Is that he was working as Clerk with the respondent-Bank from 9th August, 1976. Earlier the concerned workman was posted in Aligarh Branch and subsequently he was transferred to Hathras Branch and there he remained absent from 25th April, 1987 to 14th August, 1987. Thus, in view of the provisions of Para 16 of Chapter IV of Bipartite Settlement, the management gave a notice on 3rd October, 1988 informing the concerned workman that he had been absented from duty without any leave application for more than 90 days and consequently requiring him to report on duty within 30 days. The concerned workman did not reply. Thus, the order dated 5th January, 1989, was passed informing that it is presumed that he will be voluntary retired with effect from 8th December, 1988. The workman concerned made a request on 6th May, 1991 for his reinstatement, but the same was denied by the respondent-Bank, hence the reference. Several other allegations were also there, but since the same were not questioned by means of present writ petition. The arguments in this writ petition are confined only to the aforesaid set of facts, which have been denied by the employers in reply to the statement made by the workman. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-workman Shri M. K. Nigam has submitted that in fact after the absence for the period between 24th September, 1987 to 25th November, 1987 and 29th January, 1988, the management has already punished him by way of an earlier order. Thus, he cannot be punished for the absence for which he has already been punished. The Labour Court as of fact found it to be not correct that the workman has been punished earlier for the absence of the same period. The Labour Court found that in view of para 16 of Chapter-IV of the Bipartite agreement, it is within the competence of the employers to terminate the services of an employee remain absent for 90 days after giving him a notice of 30 days after the employee remain absent treating him to be voluntary retired. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the aforesaid para 16 of Chapter IV relying upon the decision of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh passed in Writ Petition No. 10425 of 1988, decided on 16.10.1989, T. Venkateswarlu v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vijayawada and Anr., but in view of the decision of the Apex Court passed in C.A. No. 4263 of 1999, decided on 25.4.2000, Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Anr., 2000 (2) AWC 2.23 (SC) (NOC) ; whereby the aforesaid provision has been held to be valid, therefore, it will be no more open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the aforesaid provision of bipartite agreement. On the facts, the Tribunal has recorded a finding on the basis of the material evidence on record that the workman concerned has rightly been voluntary retired in exercise of power under Para 16 of Chapter IV of Bipartite Settlement and there is no Infirmity in such exercise of powers. Learned counsel for the petitioner-workman tried to assail the award of the Tribunal on various grounds, but in view of the two decisions one of the Andhra Pradesh and the other of the Apex Court. It is now no more open to challenge the same, inasmuch as the argument on law that this amounts to retrenchment and therefore it was incumbent on the part of the employers to comply with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. With regard to the service of notice and non-appearance after service of the notice, the Tribunal has recorded findings, which are un-assailable, therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error, much less error of law so as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. This writ petition therefore is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.