Held: 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 – 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 – Further, it is undisputed that in the year 1985 the workman got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and is in active practice – Being legally trained, he was trying to drag the Bank into avoidable litigation instead of complying with the orders – As per the direction of the Bank, he was given time upto 06.02.1984 for reporting for duty – It is evident from the communication dated 01.02.1984 addressed by the workman to the Bank that he was in the knowledge of all the developments and being a Law Graduate, he very well knew the consequences of failure to challenge an order and not complying with the same – He would also be aware of the Bipartite Agreement and the consequences mentioned therein of his absence from duty – His idea seemed to be to remain in practice of law and at the same time enjoy payment of subsistence allowance without working – Even after gaining knowledge of his deemed voluntary retirement in 1984, he kept quiet for a period of six years before raising a dispute in 1990 – No error in the order passed by the High Court. [Paras 8-11, 15] Labour Laws – Suspension – Relationship of master and servant – Plea of the workman that being on suspension, he could not have been treated to have been voluntarily retired as per the deeming provision:
Held: Said plea is rejected, as during his suspension also, the relationship of master and servant does not 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 – However, it seems that he had some other scheme in his mind – The idea seems to be to lay a claim on all his wages – Initially, to get subsistence allowance without working and then claim reinstatement and back wages – If Clause XVI in the Bipartite Agreement is seen, 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 dtd.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 him on 05.10.1984, granting him 30 days’ time to report for duty, as also acknowledged by the workman – But he failed to comply with the same. [Para 16]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.