Supreme Court in the case U.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank (C.A No. 5494/2013), while rejecting the contention of the employee that being on suspension, he could not have been treated to have been voluntarily retired as per the deeming provision under the service rules, is merely to be noticed and rejected, as during his suspension also, the relationship of master and servant does not come to an end. The Court further held that all the rules and regulations governing the post continue to apply and merely because the employer had stopped paying subsistence allowance to the workman does not mean that the workman was no more an employee of the employer. Further, the Court held that 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.
Also read: HR Should Prioritize DEI Initiatives
Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
