Background
- In this case, the Supreme Court ("SC"), vide, its' judgment dated December 14,2023, held that merely because a workman was suspended, it cannot claim immunity from the rules and regulations of the organisation, where the workman was employed, at the first place.
Facts
- The facts of the case relate to a workman who was appointed with the Punjab National Bank ("PNB") from May 20, 1977, and was working as a cashier therein. In August 1978, the workman was transferred from Zaidpur, Barabanki to Shahajahanpur, vide a transfer order ("TA"). On May 14, 1982, he was suspended by PNB on account of his disorderly behaviour. Upon enquiry by PNB, the workman was found to be guilty and was awarded punishment of stoppage of two graded increments with cumulative effect from September 28, 1983, and furthermore he was instructed to report to duty to the manager, branch office, Bhagwantnagar. Consequently, the workman failed to join his duty as instructed and therefore, as per clause 16 of the bipartite agreement entered between the Indian Banks Association ("IBA") and the workman union, PNB vide an order dated December 05, 1984 ("Bank Order") held that the workman was deemed to have voluntarily retired after failing to report as per instructions of PNB.
- Being aggrieved by the Bank Order, the workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner ("ALC"), ALC referred the matter to the central government industrial tribunal cum labour court ("Tribunal"). The Tribunal ruled in favour of the workman and set aside the Bank Order. Further, the decision of the Tribunal was reversed by a decision of a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court ("HC"). The decision of the single judge bench of the HC was further appealed before the division bench of the HC. Vide an order dated, February 10, 2011 ("Impugned Order"), the Division Bench of the HC agreed with the view taken by the single bench of the HC and held that ALC was incorrect in setting aside the Bank Order. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the workman challenged the same before the SC.
Analysis
- SC highlighted that the workman faced disciplinary suspension and that he had never formally contested the TA. Dissatisfied with his new posting, he chose to correspond through letters and failed to comply with the TA, resulting in more than 90 days of inactivity without leave application. This triggered a clause in the bipartite agreement, authorising PNB to deem him voluntarily retired, after a 30-day notice period.
- The SC emphasized that challenging a transfer order requires official redressal, and the workmans' inaction implied acceptance. Despite repeated warnings, the workman did not report for duty, and pursued a legal career instead. SC observed the workmans' strategic attempts to claim non-payment of allowances while practicing law, revealed calculated manoeuvres. Additionally, the workmans' manipulative tactics continued, including staging a hunger strike and employing certain unprofessional tactics.
- SC held that PNB, recognizing his deliberate absence has rightly invoked the retirement clause in the bipartite agreement. Furthermore, the SC concluded that the cessation of subsistence allowance was PNBs' measure to prompt his return, but the workmans' persistent non-compliance and manipulative strategies sealed his fate.
Originally published 03 April 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.