This judgment revolves around the legality of the workman’s deemed voluntary retirement from service and the subsequent reinstatement order. The central question is whether the disciplinary actions taken against the workman by the Bank were justified and whether his subsequent deemed retirement was valid.
The case, UP Singh versus Punjab National Bank [CIVIL APPEAL NO.5494 OF 2013 ] originated in the trial court, where the workman, employed as a Clerk cum-Cashier with the Punjab National Bank, was suspended on disciplinary grounds in 1982. Following an inquiry, he was found guilty and penalized with a stoppage of increments. However, he was also directed to report to a different branch for duty. The workman failed to comply with this order, leading to his deemed voluntary retirement in 1984 under Clause XVI of the Fourth Bipartite Agreement.
Subsequently, the workman raised a dispute regarding his retirement, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court in 1991. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the workman, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages and benefits. However, this decision was challenged by the Bank in the High Court of Delhi.
The High Court, upon review, upheld the Bank’s position, setting aside the Tribunal’s award. This decision was then appealed by the workman through an intra-court appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court, which affirmed the Single Judge’s ruling.
Now before the Supreme Court, the workman is impugning the Division Bench’s order, challenging the validity of his deemed retirement and seeking reinstatement with full back wages and benefits. He argues that the disciplinary actions taken against him were unjustified, particularly the order of transfer issued simultaneously with the punishment order, which he claims was beyond the authority of the Disciplinary Authority. Additionally, he contends that his representations and grievances were not adequately addressed by the Bank, leading to his deemed retirement.
Conversely, the Bank argues that the workman’s past conduct, including misbehavior and non-compliance with orders, warranted disciplinary action. They assert that the imposed punishment was lenient considering the circumstances, and the subsequent direction for transfer was justified to maintain discipline within the institution.
The Supreme Court’s decision will thus hinge on a careful examination of the disciplinary proceedings, the validity of the deemed retirement, and the adequacy of the Bank’s actions in addressing the workman’s grievances, while also considering relevant provisions of employment agreements and labor laws.
Firstly, the court acknowledges the undisputed fact that the workman, who had been punished with a transfer and stoppage of increments in 1983, did not challenge the order of punishment or transfer, which consequently became final. The court emphasizes that the workman’s failure to challenge the order signifies his acceptance and duty-bound obligation to comply.
The court highlights Clause XVI of the Bipartite Agreement, which stipulates the conditions under which an employee can be deemed to have voluntarily retired. It underscores that the workman’s continuous absence from duty without proper leave or intention to join work, as well as his pursuit of a legal career, indicate his lack of intent to return to his bank employment.
Moreover, the court scrutinizes the workman’s conduct, citing instances where he deliberately avoided providing his address and attempted to manipulate the situation to his advantage by claiming mental torture and hunger strikes. The court views these actions as indicative of the workman’s attempt to avoid compliance with the bank’s directives while seeking financial benefits.
Despite the bank’s leniency in issuing multiple notices and granting extensions, the workman persistently failed to report for duty, leading the bank to ultimately treat him as having voluntarily retired. The court finds no error in the bank’s actions and upholds the order passed by the High Court, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
In summary, the court’s analysis revolves around the workman’s conduct, the provisions of the Bipartite Agreement regarding voluntary cessation of employment, and the bank’s adherence to due process in addressing the workman’s non-compliance. The court concludes that the bank’s decision to treat the workman as having voluntarily retired is justified based on his actions and upheld the order accordingly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
