U.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank
Background
The appellant, a bank clerk-cum-cashier, was disciplined in 1983 for misconduct and directed to report to a new branch far from his old posting; he never complied and, after several rounds of correspondence, hunger strikes, and repeated notices, the Bank deemed him to have voluntarily retired in 1984 under a Bipartite Agreement clause covering 90+ days of unauthorised absence. He raised a dispute only six years later, in 1990; a Labour Tribunal ruled in his favour and ordered reinstatement with back wages, but a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set that award aside. Notably, the appellant had enrolled as a practising lawyer in 1985, shortly after refusing to join his transferred post, and argued his own case in person before the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an employee aggrieved by a transfer order cannot simply refuse to comply while treating the order as void on his own say-so. The law required him to either challenge it through proper channels or obey it, and having done neither, the order became final. The Court found the appellant's correspondence pattern (repeatedly writing to the Bank on subsistence allowance while conveniently never disclosing a fixed address for service of notices, going on hunger strike, and only raising a dispute six years after being deemed retired) showed a deliberate scheme to draw out litigation rather than a genuine grievance. The Court also rejected the argument that being under suspension shielded him from the deemed-retirement clause, holding that suspension does not end the employer-employee relationship or one's obligation to obey lawful directions. Finding no infirmity in the concurrent High Court findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the deemed voluntary retirement.
Lesson Learnt
An employee who disagrees with a transfer or disciplinary order must challenge it promptly through the proper legal channel rather than unilaterally ignoring it: prolonged non-compliance combined with evasive conduct (such as concealing one's address) can itself be treated as evidence against a claim of unfair treatment, and being under suspension does not excuse non-compliance with a valid transfer order.