Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh vs HDFC Bank Ltd on 16 September 2026

1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalka Ji Nehru Enclave Branch, New Delhi– 110019.

2. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, West Mumbai, Maharashtra–400013.

3. Sh. Himanshu Choudhary, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalka Ji Nehru Enclave Branch, South East, New Delhi–110019.

4. Sh. Dhiraj Bhargav, Cluster Head, South Delhi, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalka Ji Nehru Enclave Branch, South East, New Delhi–110019.

5. Sh. Prateek Pawan, HR – Regional Head, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalka Ji Nehru Enclave Branch, South East, New Delhi–110019.

6. Sh. Raja Singh, Circle Head, South Delhi, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalka Ji Nehru Enclave Branch, South East, New Delhi–110019.

7. Sh. Malay Chaturvedi, HR Head, Delhi Gurgaon, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kalka Ji Nehru Enclave Branch, South East, New Delhi–110019.

Award 16.09.2026 Item No.- 06 I.D. No. 164/2023 16th September 2026 Present:

None for the claimant. Ms. Samiksha Tiwari, Ld. AR for the management.

The present application has been filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case of the claimant is that he was appointed as Branch Sales Manager with the management w.e.f. 09.01.2020 and his services were confirmed on 30.03.2021. He alleged that during his employment he was repeatedly transferred from one branch to another, was not provided proper work assignments and was subjected to harassment by the concerned officials of the management. He further stated that he had availed medical/Covid-related leaves under compelling circumstances, which were not properly considered by the management. A show-cause notice dated 30.08.2021 was issued to him alleging absence from duty, to which he submitted his reply on 31.08.2021, followed by a memorandum dated 03.09.2021. Thereafter, his services were terminated vide termination letter dated 08.09.2021. The claimant alleged that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before termination. According to the claimant, the termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 25F of the Act. He stated that his appeal against the termination was not decided and that conciliation proceedings also failed. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside of the termination dated 08.09.2021 and for his reinstatement with consequential benefits, monthly maintenance expenses and costs of litigation. The management, in its written statement, has opposed the claim and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the proceedings. It has contended that the certificate under Section 2-A of the Act was issued without a prior demand being raised upon the management and, therefore, no industrial dispute existed at the relevant time. It has further contended that the claimant was appointed as Branch Sales Manager and was subsequently assigned the role of Current Account Relationship Manager, and was performing managerial/supervisory duties; hence, he did not fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. It is also the case of the management that the claimant's employment was governed by the terms of his appointment and the applicable service rules and that his services were terminated in accordance with the applicable procedure on account of misconduct, which, according to the management, did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. The management has further disputed the claimant's entitlement to reinstatement or other monetary reliefs and has pleaded that the present claim is an abuse of process of law.

On merits, the management has stated that the claimant remained absent on several occasions beyond his permissible leave entitlement and failed to furnish the requisite medical documents despite opportunities being granted to him. It has further alleged that the claimant was involved in instances of misconduct and insubordination, including unauthorized handling of customer data and inappropriate conduct towards his superiors. According to the management, the claimant was issued a show-cause notice dated 30.08.2021, to which he replied, followed by a memorandum dated 03.09.2021. The management maintains that the claimant failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation and that, after following the applicable disciplinary procedure, his services were terminated vide letter dated 08.09.2021 by the competent authority. The management has accordingly denied the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice, mala fide action or procedural irregularity and has prayed for dismissal of the claim. Rejoinder had been filed by the claimant where he denied the averment made by the management in its written statement and affirmed the averments in his claim statement. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether services of the claimant had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management?

2. Relief, if any. Subsequently, the claimant filed an application seeking subsistence allowance from the management, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2025. Thereafter, the claimant filed an application under Order XIII CPC read with Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking production of documents. However, thereafter, the claimant stopped appearing before the Tribunal and has remained absent for the last four consecutive dates. Despite sufficient opportunities, the claimant has failed to appear and prosecute the present matter. In these circumstances, as the claimant has failed to appear and prosecute the present claim, the same stands dismissed for non- prosecution. Award is passed accordingly.

Let a copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication/notification under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. File be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 16.09.2026 Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II