Master-Servant Relationship Continues During Suspension Period, Workman To Follow All Rules Governing Post : Supreme Court

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal on Thursday (December 14) in an order dealing with the issue of deeming voluntary retirement in a Bipartite Agreement held that a master-servant relationship continues during the period of suspension and the workman is under obligation to follow all the rules governing his post during that period.

On the issue that while being suspended, the workman could not be treated to have voluntarily retired, the bench held “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 facts of the case are that the Petitioner was a workman in the Respondent Bank who had joined as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in June 1977. Due to disorderly behaviour, he was suspended on 14.6.1982. An enquiry was conducted which found him guilty of charges and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two graded increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.09.1983.

In terms of the same order, he was advised to report for duty to the Manager at another branch office of the bank, namely Bhagwantnagar, Unnao. On failure to join duty, the petitioner vide order dated 5.12.1984 was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service as per Clause XVI (Voluntary Cessation of Employment by Employees) of the Bipartite Agreement between Indian Bank's Association and Workmen Unions.

Aggrieved by same, the petitioner raised a dispute regarding his alleged deemed retirement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, only after six years. While the Tribunal on 15.11.1991 did rule in the favour of the petitioner, the Single Judge in the writ petition filed by Respondents reversed the decision. This was concurrently upheld by the division bench in an intra-court appeal.

The petitioner in person argued that the order of deemed retirement was illegal as firstly, after passing the punishment order, he could not be continued in suspension as the order dated 28.9.1983 stated that he shall be deemed to be reinstated only on joining the new posting; secondly, he could not comply with the transfer order explaining that the new posting was at a distance of 350 km; thirdly, no payment of subsistence allowance was done for the previous period; lastly, if he was stated to be under suspension, the transfer could only be done after his reinstatement.

The bank on the other hand stressed that continued misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner with his seniors and non-compliance of orders displayed non-acceptable indiscipline in a bank where business depends upon dealing of staff with its customers. Instead of complying with orders he dragged the disputes with the bank at different levels and misconducted himself by going on a hunger strike. Contending that there was no error in the decision of the High Court, the respondent said that the workman did not deserve any relief.

The court observed after his punishment order in 1983, the petitioner enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1985. It is an undisputed fact he had been handling cases of the Union and other employees of the Bank and perhaps never challenged the order of punishment or his transfer before the court, thereby making the order final.

Instead of joining the new posting, he continued making representations to the Bank. As per Clause XVI of the Bipartite Agreement, when a workman remains absent from work for 90 consecutive days or more, without submitting any application for leave, the employer bank is entitled, subsequent to a 30 days' notice, to conclude that the employee has no intention to join back and is thus deemed to have voluntarily retired on expiry of 30 days period.

Applying the said clause to the facts, the Court held, “ 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.”

With respect to the delay of six years in filing the dispute on the legality of the transfer, the Court held that a person sitting at home cannot by himself decide that the order is illegal and that he is not bound to comply with the same. It was observed that, “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.”

Concluding that there was no error with orders passed by the High Court, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Case Details: U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5494 OF 2013

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063

Click here to read the judgment