In Brief
A bank employee suspended for disorderly conduct was ordered in 1983 to report for duty at a transferred location. He refused and instead pursued correspondence claiming grievances over non-payment of subsistence allowance. The bank, finding him absent for over 90 days without leave, deemed him voluntarily retired in 1984 under a Bipartite Agreement with unions. Six years later, the workman—by then a practicing lawyer—sought reinstatement with back wages. Lower tribunals initially granted his claim, but the High Court reversed the decision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that suspension does not terminate the master-servant relationship, non-compliance with a transfer order without pursuing legal remedies is indefensible, and the workman's conduct amounted to an attempt to claim wages without working.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.