Summary
The Supreme Court upheld termination following redundancy where the employee declined four alternative positions carrying the same pay and sought enhanced severance rather than reinstatement. Her conduct supported voluntary abandonment. The Bank had paid notice compensation and service-based compensation; absence of governmental notice did not invalidate the action under the authority applied. The Court modified the result by treating the Rs.1,07,73,736 already received as final settlement of all claims.
Issues
- Whether refusal of equivalent alternative jobs supported termination and an inference of abandonment.
- Whether the compensation and notice requirements defeated the termination.
- What treatment should apply to the amounts already received.
Provisions considered
- Section 25F(a)–(c), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Bank had paid six months’ notice compensation and compensation based on fifteen days’ salary for each completed service year. On the authorities applied, governmental notice under clause (c) was directory. (¶¶ 5.2, 5.3)
Held
- The employee declined four alternative positions on the same pay scale which required no special training or technical expertise. Her pursuit of monetary enhancement, without a reinstatement claim during conciliation, supported the finding of voluntary abandonment on these facts. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.3)
- The Bank paid notice compensation and service-based compensation. Although governmental notice had not been sent, the Court applied decisions treating that requirement as directory. (¶ 5.3)
- The employee had received Rs.1,07,73,736 under the various recorded heads. Those receipts were to be treated as final settlement of all claims, modifying the Division Bench judgment to that extent. (¶¶ 5.4, 6)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed without costs, subject to modification treating amounts already received as final settlement of all claims. All applications disposed of.