U.P. SINGHversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

                [2023] 15 S.C.R. 893 : 2023 INSC 1077



                           CASE DETAILS

                              U.P. SINGH
                                    v.
                     PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
                    (Civil Appeal No. 5494 of 2013)
                         DECEMBER 14, 2023
           [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]

                            HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration: High Court whether justified in reversing the
award of the Tribunal whereby it had accepted the prayer of the workman
and the order deeming that he had voluntarily retired was set aside.
     Labour Laws – Workman was appointed as Clerk-cum-
Cashier with the respondent-Bank – Initially, he was working at
Barabanki, thereafter, transferred to Zaidpur, Barabanki and then to
Shahjanhanpur – Suspended on account of disorderly behaviour – On
enquiry, was found guilty and awarded punishment of stoppage of two
graded increments with cumulative effect vide order dtd.28.09.1983 –
Vide the same order, he was advised to report for duty to the Manager,
Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao – Failed to join duty – Order
passed wherein he was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service –
Six years later, he raised dispute about his deemed retirement – Dispute
referred to the Tribunal which held in favour of the workman – Award
of the Tribunal reversed by Single Judge – Said order upheld by the
Division Bench:
     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
                                   893
894          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 15 S.C.R.


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
           U.P. SINGH v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                           895


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

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5494 of 2013.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.02.2011 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 481 of 2010.
     Appearances:
     Petitioner-in-person.
    Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Samir Mudgil, Sumit Sharma,
Ms. Anani Achumi, Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Shivani Sagar, Advs. for the
Respondent.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                 JUDGMENT
     RAJESH BINDAL, J.
     1. The workman is before this Court impugning the order 1 passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court2 in an intra court appeal3, whereby the
order4 passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition5 was upheld.



1   Order dated 10.02.2011.
2   High Court of Delhi
3   Letters Patent Appeal No. 481 of 2010
4   Order dated 26.02.2010.
5   Writ Petition No. 7834 of 2003
896             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 15 S.C.R.


      2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside the
award6 of the Tribunal7. 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 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 of the Bipartite
Agreement10 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.


6     Award dated 27.08.2003.
7     Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court
8     Punjab National Bank
9     Clause XVI- Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the Employees
10    Fourth Bipartite Agreement dated 17.09.1984.
          U.P. SINGH v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                          897


      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 after
his reinstatement.
      6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank submitted that
seeing the conduct of the workman, who had been misbehaving with
his senior officers and was also in the habit of not complying with the
orders of the authorities, he was imposed a very light punishment of
stoppage of two graded increments, otherwise the notice issued to him
after enquiry was to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed
from service. There is no place for any indisciplined person in any
institution, especially in a Bank where entire business depends upon
the dealing of the staff with its customers. Even after the punishment
was imposed upon him and to avoid any further untoward incident,
seeing his past conduct, the workman was directed to report for duty
at a different branch. However, the workman did not comply with that
order and continued raising the dispute with the Bank at different levels.
He further mis-conducted himself by sitting on a hunger strike. This
aggravated the issue and shows the attitude of the workman who was
898          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


not fit to be retained in service. It was contended that there is no error
in the orders passed by the High Court setting aside the award of the
Tribunal and the workman does not deserve any relief.
     7. We have heard the workman, who appeared in-person and the learned
counsel for the Bank and perused the relevant referred record.
      8. A fact which is not in dispute and has been specifically recorded by
the learned Single Judge of the High Court in his order is that in the year
1985 the workman got himself enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council
of Uttar Pradesh. It was admitted by him that he had been handling cases
of the Union and other employees of the Bank.
       9. It is a fact that the workman was awarded the punishment of stoppage
of two graded increments vide order dated 28.09.1983. In the same order,
the workman was directed to report for duty to the Manager, Branch Office,
Bhagwantnagar, Unnao (U.P.). The fact which remains undisputed is 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
relevant Clause is extracted below:
      “Clause XVI- Voluntary Cessation of Employment by the
      Employees
      Where an employee has not submitted any application for leave and
      absents himself from work for period of 90 days or more consecutive
      days without or beyond any leave to his credit or absents himself for
      90 or more consecutive days beyond the period of leave originally
      sanctioned or subsequently extended or where there is satisfactory
      evidence that he has taken up employment in India or the management
      is satisfied that he has no present intention of joining duties, the
      management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee
           U.P. SINGH v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                              899


     last known address calling upon the employee to report for duty within
     30 days of the notice stating inter alia, the grounds for the management
     coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining
     duties and furnishing necessary evidence, wherever available. Unless
     the employee reports for duty within 30 days or unless he gives an
     explanation for his absence satisfying the management that he has
     not taken up another employment for avocation and that he has no
     intention of not joining duties, the employee will be deemed to have
     voluntarily retired from the Bank’s service on the expiry of the said
     notice. In the event of employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he
     shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from
     the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the
     banks right to take any action under law or rules of service.”
      10. 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.
      11. On 20.12.1983, a letter was issued to the workman reminding him
that despite his transfer to the Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao, he had
not yet reported for duty. He was given ten days’ time to report for duty or
latest by 05.01.1984. It was stated that otherwise, it shall be presumed that
he was absenting unauthorisedly and disciplinary action would be taken
against him in terms of the Bipartite Agreement. This was followed by
another letter dated 05.01.1984. The workman was given ten days’ time to
join the duty from the date of receipt of the letter or latest by 20.01.1984,
whichever was earlier. Further, the intention of the workman was quite
evident from the subsequent events which remained undisputed, namely,
that he intended to join legal practice which he did, as admittedly in the
year 1985, he got himself enrolled as an Advocate and is in active practice.
The communication dated 30.01.1984 from the Bank to the workman shows
that the workman had personally submitted a letter dated 24.01.1984 to the
900          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 15 S.C.R.


Regional Manager, Lucknow Region of the Bank. As per the direction of the
Bank, the workman 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 further, 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. In the aforesaid letter, the
workman had mentioned that from January 1984, his subsistence allowance
had not been paid resulting in mental torture to him. His idea seemed to
be to remain in practice of law and at the same time enjoy payment of
subsistence allowance without working. The language of the letter also
clearly suggests that the workman was legally trained.
      12. His over-smartness is evident further from the contents of
his letter where he claimed that as a consequence of non-payment of
subsistence allowance, he had to pass his life on open road and his address
for communication had been lost, thus making sure that he could take a
plea that none of the communications from the Bank were received by
him. In his subsequent letter dated 08.02.1984, in response to letters from
the Bank dated 05.01.1984, 09.01.1984 and 30.01.1984, he again 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. The aforesaid
communication from the workman clearly establishes 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 Manager, Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao vide order
dated 28.09.1983, but instead of submitting his joining, he continued
corresponding with the Bank.
     13. The conduct of the workman is further evident from the
communication dated 06.03.1984, addressed by him to the Chairman of
the Bank informing that he had gone on hunger strike from 06.03.1984
onwards on account of non-redressal of his grievances. Yet, he was smart
enough not to furnish his address in the said letter. Though the period
of 90 days had already expired after 28.09.1983 and the workman was
          U.P. SINGH v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                          901


absenting from duty without any application despite repeated notices
served upon him, still a notice was sent by the Bank to the workman at
his last known two addresses on 05.10.1984 referring to Clause XVI of
the Bipartite Agreement specifically stating that in case of his failure to
join duty within 30 days, he shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired
from service.
     14. Notice was also published in Lucknow and Allahabad Editions
of North India Patrika on 08.10.1984. This was done as an abundant
caution as the workman had not been furnishing his address in any of
his communication though had been corresponding with the Bank. He
was well aware of the communications sent by the Bank even after the
aforesaid notice was issued to him. He sent another letter to the Bank on
17.10.1984, claiming payment of subsistence allowance from January
1984 onwards. He sent yet another letter dated 18.10.1984 to the Branch
Manager, Shahjahanpur informing that in case any communication is
received in his name from any other office, the same may be served upon
him but strangely enough he did not mention at what address.
      15. In his subsequent communication dated 20.10.1984, again the
workman claimed bonus but still did not furnish any address. Same was
the position in his subsequent communications also which we do not
wish to expound upon in this order as the sum and substance of the same
is that instead of complying with the order directing him to join duty
at the Branch Office, Bhagwantnagar, Unnao, the workman continued
a running correspondence with the Bank. In these circumstances, it is
apparent that the workman, who was legally trained, was trying to drag the
Bank into avoidable litigation instead of complying with the orders. The
Bank, vide order dated 05.12.1984, considering his conduct, had treated
him to have voluntarily retired from service with immediate effect. The
aforesaid order was sent at the last two known addresses of the workman.
Though the workman was claiming that he does not have any address for
correspondence, but immediately after the order dated 05.12.1984 was
passed, he wrote a letter dated 07.12.1984 to the Bank giving reference of
the aforesaid order directing his deemed voluntary retirement. He claimed
that he got knowledge of the aforesaid order from a Union leader when
he visited Lucknow on 05.12.1984. Even after gaining knowledge of his
deemed voluntary retirement on 07.12.1984, the workman kept quiet for
902            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 15 S.C.R.


a period of six years before raising a dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner on 28.08.1990.
      16. The aforesaid conduct of the workman itself was sufficient to non-
suit him as has rightly been done. His argument that being on suspension,
he could not have been treated to have been voluntarily retired as per the
deeming provision, is merely to be noticed and 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 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 is also acknowledged by the workman.
But for reasons best known to him he failed to comply with the same.
     17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any error with the order
passed by the High Court. The same is upheld.
      18. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


Headnotes prepared by:                                       Appeal dismissed.
Divya Pandey