In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5494 OF 2013- SC-During workman’s suspension, relationship of master & servant does not come to an end; all rules & regulations governing the post continue to apply: Supreme Court
Justices Hima Kohli & Rajesh Bindal [14-12-2023]

Read Order: U.P. SINGH v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, December 18, 2023: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of an employee of Punjab National Bank who was suspended on account of his disorderly behaviour and was held to have been voluntarily retired from his post. The Top Court opined that a person aggrieved by the order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that the order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with the same.

The workman was impugning the order passed by the Division Bench of the DelhiHigh Court in an intra court whereby the Order passed by the Single Judge in the Writ Petition was upheld. The Single Judge Bench had set aside the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court whereby the order deeming that the workman had voluntarily retired, was set aside. He was directed to be reinstated with full back wages along with interest and consequential benefits.

The factual background of the case was such that the workman was appointed with the Bank (Punjab National Bank) in the year 1977 as Clerk- cum-Cashier. Initially, he was working at Barabanki. Thereafter, he was transferred to Shahjanhanpur. In the year 1982, he was suspended on account of his disorderly behaviour. He was found awarded punishment of stoppage of two graded increments and was advised to report for duty to the ManagerBranch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao. The workman failed to join duty.

In terms of Clause XVI (Clause XVI- Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employees) of the Bipartite Agreement (Fourth Bipartite Agreement dated 17.09.1984) between Indian Banks Association and Workmen Unions, the workman was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Bank, six years later, the workman raised a dispute about his deemed retirement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication.

The workman, even as per the material available on record, had joined active practice as a lawyer after his deemed voluntary retirement from service with the Bank, had appeared in person and argued before the Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal took note of the fact that the workman never challenged the order of punishment or his transfer before the competent authority or the Court and the said order became final. He was only aggrieved with his posting to the Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao. Instead of joining his new place of posting, he continued writing letters.

In terms of Clause XVI of the Bipartite Agreement, in case a workman absents from work consecutively for 90 days or more, without submitting any application for leave, the Bank is entitled, after 30 days’ notice, to conclude that the employee has no intention to join duty and is deemed to have voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period of 30 days, the Bench clarified.

“A person aggrieved by the order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that the order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with the same. If the workman had any grievance, he could have availed of his remedy available against the same; otherwise, he was duty-bound to comply with the same. Failure to avail of any remedy also would mean that he had accepted the order and was duty-bound to comply with the same. At a later stage, he could not take a plea that the order being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance”, the Bench stated.

In his letterswhich were written as a response to letters from the Bank, he raised the issue regarding non-payment of his subsistence allowance but did not mention his address. He stated that he could not be compelled to report for duty at the Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao. This communication from the workman clearly established the fact that he was in the know of the letters issued by the Bank to him regarding his voluntary absence from duty for over 90 days. He was directed to report for duty to the Managerbut instead of submitting his joining, he continued corresponding with the Bank.

His argument that being on suspension, he could not have been treated to have been voluntarily retired as per the deeming provision was rejected by the Bench as during his suspension also, the relationship of master and servant didn’t come to an end. “All the rules and regulations governing the post continue to apply. Merely because the Bank had stopped paying subsistence allowance to the workman does not mean that the workman was no more an employee of the Bank.The action was taken by the Bank only to ensure that somehow or the other, the workman joined his duty”, the Bench added.

As per the Bench, the idea of the workman seemed to be to lay a claim on all his wages. Initially, to get subsistence allowance without working and then claim reinstatement and back wages. Referring to Clause XVI in the Bipartite Agreement, the Bench opined that the workman could have been treated to have been voluntarily retired immediately upon expiry of 90 days from 28.09.1983 as he had failed to join duty.

Letter dated 05.01.1984 issued by the Bank was duly acknowledged by him in his communication but still he failed to join duty and continued writing letters. Despite this fact, the Bank was magnanimous enough to have issued a final notice to the workman on 05.10.1984, granting him 30 days’ time to report for duty. This was also acknowledged by the workman. But for reasons best known to him he failed to comply with the same.

Thus, without finding any error in the earlier orders, the Bench dismissed the appeal.