14 December 2023 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

A bank employee in India recently lost his case against being deemed voluntarily retired from service. The workman, who was suspended for misconduct, challenged the bank's decision after it invoked a clause considering his absence as voluntary retirement.

Background of the Case:

The employee, a clerk-cum-cashier, was suspended following disciplinary action. He was then transferred to a different branch as part of the penalty. However, the employee did not report to the new branch and instead chose to contest the transfer order through legal means.

Bank's Action and Employee's Response:

The bank, citing a clause in a bipartite agreement, deemed the employee to have voluntarily retired after he failed to rejoin work within 90 days without leave. The clause stipulated that such absence would be considered an intention to resign.

The employee argued that the transfer order was illegal and that his suspension prevented him from joining the new branch. He further claimed non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension.

Conclusion:

The court did not find merit in the employee's arguments. The judgement pointed out that he failed to challenge the transfer order through proper channels and continued corresponding with the bank, indicating his awareness of the situation. Additionally, his actions, including a hunger strike, suggested an intent not to return to work. The court also noted that the employee became a lawyer around the time of his deemed retirement and waited six years before contesting the decision. The court upheld the bank's decision, considering the employee's conduct and his lack of timely action against the deemed retirement.