Employee's Failure To Challenge Transfer Order Means He Accepted It : Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that an employee's failure to challenge a Transfer Order means that he had accepted the order and was duty-bound to comply with the same.
The Court said that at a later stage, he could not take a plea that the order being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance.
The Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, "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 being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance."
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Gautam appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Bank.
The worker was appointed a Clerk-cum-Cashier in 1977 and faced disciplinary action for disorderly behaviour in 1982. He was suspended and later deemed to have voluntarily retired in 1984 after failing to report to his new posting. Six years later, he challenged this decision before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, claiming the transfer order was invalid and he couldn't join the new location due to distance and unpaid allowances. The Tribunal set aside the order of voluntary retirement. Later, the High Court restored it by setting aside Tribunal's order. Aggrieved, the workman approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal challenging the order of the High Court.
The Court noted that the worker faced disciplinary suspension and a transfer order in 1983, which he never formally contested. Dissatisfied with his new posting, he failed to comply and chose to correspond via letters. His inactivity, exceeding 90 days without leave application, triggered the agreement's clause allowing the Bank to deem him voluntarily retired after a 30-day notice period, leading to his deemed retirement.
The Bench observed that challenging a transfer order requires official redressal, and employees cannot simply ignore directives, as inaction implies acceptance. Despite repeated warnings, the worker failed to report for duty at his new posting, choosing to pursue a legal career instead. The court noted his strategic attempts to claim non-payment of allowances while practising law, exposing his calculated manoeuvres.
Additionally, the Court noted that the worker's manipulative tactics continued, staging a hunger strike and conveniently omitting his address to feign ignorance. The Bank, recognizing his deliberate absence, officially invoked the Bipartite Agreement's retirement clause in October 1984. Despite repeated warnings and communication attempts, the worker persisted in playing a cat-and-mouse game, leading to his deemed retirement in December 1984.
Therefore, the Bench held that the cessation of subsistence allowance was seen as the Bank's measure to prompt his return, and despite warnings and notices, the worker failed to comply, sealing his fate through his persistent non-compliance and manipulative strategies.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the order.
Cause Title: UP Singh v Punjab National Bank (2023 INSC 1077)
Appearance:
Respondent: Advocates Anant Gautam, Sumit Sharma, Dinesh Sharma, Anani Achumi, Shivani Sagar.