As per case facts, a bank workman, after being transferred multiple times, failed to report for duty or provide satisfactory explanations for his prolonged absence, despite repeated notices and opportunities. ... The bank, observing his lack of intention to join, invoked a bipartite settlement clause and deemed him to have voluntarily retired. This led to an industrial dispute where an award for his reinstatement was passed, which was affirmed by the High Court, prompting the bank to appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the bank was justified in deeming the workman to have voluntarily retired under the bipartite settlement without a full-fledged departmental inquiry, and if the principles of natural justice were adequately met. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the bipartite settlement acted as a complete code, and the bank's action was fair. It ruled that a full-fledged inquiry was not required when an employee repeatedly fails to respond to notices or provide satisfactory reasons for absence, especially after being given ample opportunities. The Court concluded that the workman's actions clearly indicated no intention to join duties, thereby validating the bank's decision to deem him voluntarily retired, and finding sufficient compliance with natural justice.