U.P. SINGH versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 14-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 893 : 2023 INSC 1077
893
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 justifi ed 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 eff ect vide order dtd.28.09.1983 – 
Vide the same order, he was advised to report for duty to the Manager, 
Branch Offi  ce, 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 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
894
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 
fi nal – He was only aggrieved with his posting to the Branch Offi  ce, 
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 
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 du

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