The workman is before this Court impugning the order
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in an intra court appeal,
whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition was
upheld. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside the
award of the Tribunal. Vide the aforesaid award, the prayer of the
workman was accepted, and order dated 05.12.1984 deeming that the workman had voluntarily
retired, was set aside. He was directed to be reinstated with full
back wages along with interest and consequential benefits.100
The brief facts of the case, as are available on record,
are that the workman was appointed with the Bank120 on 20.06.1977 as Clerk-cum-Cashier.
Initially, he was working at Barabanki. Thereafter, he was transferred to Sitapur
and then to Hardoi in August 1978. On 14.06.1982, he was suspended on
account of his disorderly behaviour. On enquiry, the workman
was found guilty of the charges and awarded punishment of stoppage of two
graded increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.09.1983.200 Vide the same order, he was
advised to report for duty to the Manager, Branch Office, Unnao. The workman
failed to join duty. As per the terms of Bipartite Agreement between Indian
Banks' Association and Workmen Unions, vide order dated240 05.12.1984, the workman was deemed
to have voluntarily retired from service.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Bank, six years later,
the workman raised a dispute about his deemed retirement before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner. On 15.11.1991, the dispute was referred to the
Tribunal for adjudication. The question referred was300 answered by the Tribunal in
favour of the workman. However, the learned Single Judge reversed the award
of the Tribunal and the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. The workman, even as per the material available on record, has
joined active practice as a lawyer after his deemed voluntary retirement
from service with the Bank,360 has appeared in person and argued before this Court. Even the
Tribunal had recorded that the workman had appeared himself in person and had
addressed arguments. The workman, who appeared in person, submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority, while passing the400 order of punishment after enquiry, could not have ordered
his transfer in the same order as the competence to order transfer of
the workman lied with a different authority. The workman had been raising that
issue before the authority. However, the same was not addressed and in an
illegal manner, he was deemed to have voluntarily retired. He was not
given joining time also.
He made a number of representations to revoke his suspension to
enable him to join the480 place of posting after his reinstatement. He had even gone on
hunger strike but none of the authorities redressed his500 grievance. He was not even paid subsistence
allowance for the period he was under suspension. After passing of
the punishment order in the enquiry initiated against him, he could not be
continued on suspension as the order dated 28.09.1983 stated that he shall be
deemed to be reinstated only on joining at the new place of posting. He sought
to explain his reasons for not complying with the order of transfer by
explaining that the Branch Office, Unnao, was at a distance of 350 kilometres.
There was non-payment of allowances including subsistence allowance600 for the previous period,
and if he was stated to be under suspension, he could not have been
transferred as the transfer was possible only after his reinstatement.
On the other hand, learned counsel
for the Bank submitted that seeing the conduct of the workman, who had been misbehaving
with his senior officers and was also in the habit of not complying with
the orders of the authorities, he was imposed a very light punishment of
stoppage of two graded increments, otherwise the notice issued to him after
enquiry was to show cause as to why he should not be700 dismissed from service. There
is no place for any indisciplined person in any institution,
especially in a Bank where entire720 business depends upon the dealing of the staff with its
customers.
Even after the punishment was imposed upon
him and to avoid any further untoward incident, seeing his past conduct,
the workman was directed to report for duty at a different branch. However, the
workman did not comply with that order and continued raising the dispute with
the Bank at different levels. He further misconducted himself by sitting
on a hunger strike. This aggravated the issue and shows the attitude800 of the workman who was not fit to
be retained in service. It was contended that there is no error in the
orders passed by the High Court setting aside the award of the Tribunal and the
workman does not840 deserve any relief.
We have heard the workman who
appeared in person, the learned counsel for the Bank, and perused the relevant
record. A fact which is not in dispute and has been specifically recorded
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in his order is that in the
year 1985 the workman got himself enrolled as an900 Advocate with the Bar Council
of Uttar Pradesh. It was admitted by him that he had been handling cases of the
Union and other employees of the Bank.
ghanshyam
It is a fact that the workman was awarded the punishment of
stoppage of two graded increments vide order dated 28.09.1983. In the same
order, the960 workman was directed to report for duty to the Manager, Branch
Office, Unnao. The fact which remains undisputed is that the workman never
challenged the order of punishment or his transfer before the competent
authority or the Court and the1000 said order became final. He was only aggrieved with his posting
to the Branch Office, Unnao. Instead of joining his new place of posting, he
continued writing letters. As per the terms of the Bipartite Agreement,
in case a workman remains absent from work consecutively for 90 days or
more, without submitting any application for leave, the Bank is entitled, after
30 days' notice, to conclude that the employee has no intention to join duty
and is deemed to have1080 voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period of 30
days.
