GENERAL MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK AND ANR. versus PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 24-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

•. 
-
GENERAL MANAGER, VIJA YA BANK AND ANR. 
v. 
PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA 
AUGUST 24, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Workman unauthorisedly abstainedji-om duty-Notice-He did not report 
for duty within 30 days from the issuance of notice-Employer ordering his 
voluntary retirement from service-Industrial dispute-Tribunal held action 
of the employer in retiring him from service justified-High Court directing 
A 
B 
c 
the employer to reinstate him with back wages-On appeal, Held: Since the D 
notice period of 30 days has to be reckoned only from the date of service of 
the notice, the workman had joined the duty well within the permissible tinie 
limit-Hence, the order passed by lhe High Court ordering his reinstatement 
shall stand-However, High Court while directing reinstatement of the workman 
with full back wages and consequential benefits did not examine the question 
as to whether the workman was gainfully employed or not during the relevant E 
period-Hence, the matter is remitted to High Court to examine the question 
of payment of back wages aji-esh. 
The appellant is the General Manager of a Bank wherein the 
respondent was employed as clerk. The respondent-workman abstained 
from duty without any leave application. The bank issued notice dir_ecting F 
him to report for duty within 30 days. The respondent reported back to 
duty within ten days. He again abstained from duty without any prior 
intimation. The bank issued second notice to him, which was received by 
him on 14.09.1992. When he reported for duty on 12.10.1992, he was not 
allowed to join the duty and he was ordered t1J be retired from the service. G 
The respondent raised an industrial dispute. The matter was referred to 
an Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the action of the 
Management in retiring him from service was wholly justified and lawful. 
Aggrieved, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, which 
was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
3~ 
H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant-bank contended that the respondent-workman has not 
discharged his burden by adducing any evidence to show that he was not 
gainfully employed since his retirement from service; and that the High 
Court erred in ordering full back wages to him in the facts and 
circumstances of the case. 
B 
The respondent submitted that he had reported for duty within the 
notice period but he was not allowed to join duty and, therefore, he cannot 
be penalised for the mistake committed by the employer in not permitting 
him to join the duty; that the procedure to deal with unauthorised absence 
of staff members has not been followed by the appellant-bank; that the 
C notice calling upon the respondent to report for duty within 30 days from 
the date of publication of the notice and not 30 days from the date of its 
issuance as wrongly stated in the order of termination; that it is settled 
position in law that an order shall not be effective unless it is published 
and communicated to the officer concerned; that the respondent was not 
gainfully employed since his retirement from the servke; and that since 
D the bank had prevented hi1n from joining duty though he was not at fault, 
he is entitled to full back wages. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court has not considered the question as to 
E whether the respondent was gainfully employed or not during the relevant 
period in question. The High Court has also not adverted to the categorical 
finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect. (373-BI 
1.2. The High c.ourt without considering the relevant isso.1e has 
ordered the appellant-bank to reinstate the respondent-workman on the 
F post held by him with full back wages with all other consequential benefits, 
which is not correct. (373-CI 
1.3. The period of 30 days tias to be reckoned only from the date of 
service of the notice. If that date is taken into consideration, the respondent 
G has joined the duty well within 30 days. (374-A( 
1.4. The matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the question 
of payment of back wages for the period in question afresh. The appellant 
bank is free to hold any departmental enquiry against the respondent-
workman for his absence from duty during the relevant period. Since the 
H matter is remitted to the High Court on the question of back wages only, 
-
GENERAL M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.