Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a bank workman’s deemed voluntary retirement after prolonged absence and failure to report despite repeated notices. He had not challenged the punishment and posting order through the available remedies. Suspension did not sever employment or make the governing service terms inapplicable.
Issues
- Whether the workman’s continued absence and response to notices justified deemed voluntary retirement.
- Whether asserted defects in the transfer or continuing suspension excused non-compliance.
Provisions considered
- Clause XVI: Voluntary Cessation of Employment, Fourth Bipartite Agreement dated 17 September 1984The contractual mechanism permitted deemed retirement after the stipulated absence and notice where the employee neither reported nor supplied a satisfactory explanation. The Bank had issued a final thirty-day notice and the employee still failed to join. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- The punishment and posting order had not been challenged before a competent authority or court and became final. The workman could pursue a remedy but could not unilaterally decline compliance and later avoid its consequences by asserting illegality. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The repeated correspondence demonstrated knowledge of the Bank’s directions and notices. The final notice was sent to his last known addresses and also published; he continued to correspond without joining. His subsequent legal practice and six-year delay in raising the dispute reinforced the conclusion drawn from his conduct. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Suspension does not end the master-servant relationship. Service rules continued to govern him; stopping subsistence allowance did not mean that he ceased to be a bank employee or make the deemed-retirement mechanism unavailable. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court’s decision setting aside the Tribunal’s award of reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits was upheld.