Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
U.P. Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5494 of 2013
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Service Law – Reinstatement in service with full back wages along with interest and consequential benefits – Reversal by High Court – A person aggrieved by order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with same – If workman had any grievance, he could have availed of his remedy available against same; otherwise, he was duty-bound to comply with 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 order being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance – Workman, who was legally trained, was trying to drag Bank into avoidable litigation instead of complying with orders – Merely because Bank had stopped paying subsistence allowance to workman does not mean that workman was no more an employee of Bank – Action was taken by Bank only to ensure that somehow or other, workman joined his duty – However, he had some other scheme in his mind – Idea seems to be to lay claim on all his wages – Order passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 10, 15,16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Workman is before this Court impugning order passed by Division Bench of High Court in an intra court appeal, whereby order passed by Single Judge in Writ Petition was upheld.
Findings of Court:
Letter dated 05.01.1984 issued by Bank was duly acknowledged by him in his communication but still he failed to join duty and continued writing letters. Despite this fact, Bank was magnanimous enough to have issued a final notice to workman on 05.10.1984, granting him 30 days’ time to report for duty. This is also acknowledged by workman. But for reasons best known to him he failed to comply with the same.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The workman is before this Court impugning the order1 [Order dated 10.02.2011] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2 [High Court of Delhi] in an intra court appeal3 [Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 2010] whereby the order4 [Order dated 26.02.2010] passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition5 [Writ Petition No. 7834 of 2003] was upheld.
2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside the award6 [Award dated 27.08.2003] of the Tribunal.7 [Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court] Vide the aforesaid award, the prayer of the workman was accepted, and order dated 05.12.1984 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.
3. The brief facts of the case, as are available on record, are that the workman was appointed with the Bank8 [Punjab National Bank] on 20.06.1977 as Clerk-cum-Cashier. Initially, he was working at Barabanki. Thereafter, he was transferred to Zaidpur, Barabanki and then to Shahjanhanpur in August 1978. On 14.06.1982, he was suspended on account of his disorderly behaviour. On enquiry, the workman was found guilty of the charges and awarded punishment of stoppage of two graded increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.09.1983. Vide the same order, he was advised to report for duty to the Manager, Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao. The workman failed to join duty. In terms of Clause XVI9 [Clause XVI-Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employees] of the Bipartite Agreement10 [Fourth Bipartite Agreement dated 17.09.1984] between Indian Banks’ Association and Workmen Unions, vide order dated 05.12.1984, 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. On 15.11.1991, the dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The question referred was answered by the Tribunal in favour of the workman. However, the learned Single Judge reversed the award of the Tribunal and the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The workman, even as per the material available on record, has joined active practice as a lawyer after his deemed voluntary retirement from service with the Bank, has appeared in person and argued before this Court. Even the Tribunal had recorded that the workman had appeared himself in person and had addressed arguments.
5. The workman, who appeared in person, submitted that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order of punishment after enquiry, could not have ordered his transfer in the same order as the competence to order transfer of the workman lied with a different authority. The workman had been raising that issue before the authority, however, the same was not addressed and in an illegal manner, he was deemed to have voluntarily retired. He was not given joining time also. He made number of representations to revoke his suspension to enable him to join the place of posting after his reinstatement. He had even gone on hunger strike but none of the authorities redressed his grievance. He was not even paid subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension. After passing of the punishment order in the enquiry initiated against him, he could not be continued on suspension as the order dated 28.09.1983 stated that he shall be deemed to be reinstated only on joining at the new place of posting. He sought to explain his reasons for not complying with the order of transfer by explaining that the Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao, was at a distance of 350 kilometers. There was non-payment of allowances including subsistence allowance for the previous period, and if he was stated to be under suspension, he could not have been transferred as the transfer was possible only aft
A person aggrieved by order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with same.
The enforcement of attendance notices must allow employees to report within the stipulated timeframe, and management's failure to comply with procedural safeguards can render termination actions unla....
The judgment established that an employee's services cannot be terminated without following due process of law, and unexplained delay in seeking reinstatement may indicate abandonment of service.
Termination of employment upheld due to unauthorized absence exceeding 90 days, consistent with Bipartite Settlement provisions, despite claims of improper notice service.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, which requires full and complete payment of compensation without any unauthorize....
The court affirmed that a transfer of service is a lawful exercise of management's discretion and does not constitute termination unless explicitly stated in the employment contract.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
