Holding

A transfer order is a valid part of service conditions and cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is mala fide, prohibited by the service rules, or passed by an incompetent authority.

Summary

The respondent, Anjan Sanyal, a probationary officer of the State Bank of India (SBI), was transferred several times, including to the bank's Central Office in Mumbai, but repeatedly refused to join the postings and filed representations seeking cancellation. The Calcutta High Court, both a Single Judge and a Division Bench, quashed the transfer orders on the ground that the transfer had not been served and directed SBI to pay his salary for the period of unauthorized absence. SBI appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the transfer orders were valid under the SBI Officers' Service Rules and that the respondent was aware of the transfers. The Supreme Court held that a transfer order is a part of service conditions and can be interfered with only if it is mala fide, prohibited by the service rules, or passed by an incompetent authority. Since none of these conditions were established and the respondent had acknowledged the transfers, the transfer orders were deemed valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment directing payment of salary and dismissed the respondent's writ petition. The appeal by SBI was allowed, affirming the validity of the transfer orders.

Issues considered

Whether a transfer order of a bank officer is valid despite alleged non-service of the order.
Whether the High Court could set aside the transfer order and direct payment of salary for unauthorized absence.
Whether the transfer order was mala fide, prohibited by service rules, or passed by an incompetent authority.

Legislation cited

State Bank of India Act, 1955s. 43(1)

Subjects

service lawtransfer of servicebank officersunauthorised absencedisciplinary actionservice rulesjudicial reviewno work no pay

Judgment

STATE BANK OF INDIA A
v.
ANJAN SANYAL AND ORS.

APRIL 12, 2001

[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] B

Service Law :

State of Bank of India Officers' Service Rules: Rules 47, 49 and 50( 1).

Middle Management Grade II-Officers-Transfer of-Probationary Of- c
ficer transferred to Bank's Central Office-But, instead of complying with the
transfer order, officer filed representations seeking cancellation of trun.ifer
order, which were refused-However, Single Judge quashed the transfer order
on the ground that the tran~ferorderwas not serwd on the officer and directed
payment of salary for the period officer remained absent in an unauthorised
D
manner-Division Bench affirmed this decision-Correctness of-Held: Transfer
of an employee is a part of the sen>ice conditions-Such transfer not to be
lil{htly interfered with by a Courl of law in exercise o.f its discretionary ju1isdic-
tion unless the order is malafide or is pmlzibited by se1vice rules-It is clear,
fmm the representations ofthe Officer, that he was aware of the transferorde1~
Hence, transfer order valid-High Court's order directing bank to pay salary E
and other benefits to the Officers for the period he was absent in an unauthor-

.. ised manner, set aside-State Bank of India of India Act, 1955-Hand Book of
Staff Matters, Vol. I, para 8. 34( a), Ch. VJ!.

The respondent, who was a probationary Officer in Middle manage-
ment Grade II in the appellant-Bank, was transferred to the appellant's F
Central Office. But, instead of complying with the transfer order, the
respondent filed representations requesting for cancellation of his transfer
order, which were refused. Being aggrieved, the respondent field a writ
petition before the High Court challenging the aforesaid transfer order. A
Single Judge of the High Court quashed the transfer order on the ground G
that the transfer order was not served on the respondent and directed the
appellant to pay the salary and other benefits to the respondent for the
period during which he was absent iu an unauthorised manner. The Divi-
sion Bench affirmed this decision. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the respondent was H
1165
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S. C.R.
A aware of the transfer order as was evident from the respondent's represen-
tations in which he had admitted having received a letter informing him '"'
about his transfer to the Central Office of the appellant's Bank.

On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the respondent,
being an officer of a Bank, could not be orally transferred and, therefore,
B the High Court rightly held the transfer order as illegal and invalid; that
the appellant-Bank did not proceed against the respondent in accordance
with the guidelines contained in the Hand Book of Staff Matters, Volume I,
paragraph 8.34(a) of Chapter VII which showed that there was no valid
transfer order; and that unless the Rules permitted, the respondent would
c be entitled to his salary during the period he was absent in an unauthor·
ised manner.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. t. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the
D service conditions and such order of transfer is not required to he inter-
fered with lightly by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdic·
tion unless the Court finds that either the order is ma/a fide or that the
service rules prohibit such transfer or that the authorities, who issued the
order, had not the competence to pass the order. [1171-F]
E )
1.2. The High Court has not held the transfer order to be malafide or
that the competent authority had not passed the order and, therefore, it is
not possible to bold that the said order had not been passed nor bad been
communicated to the respondent. [1172-C-D]

F 2.1. From the series of representations filed by the respondent, it is
not possible to hold that there did not exist any order of transfr·r and that
the respondent did not know of the same. On the other land, the respond-
ent was fully aware of the order of transfer and tried to evade the same by
adopting all possible pretexts and continued to remain absent without
discharging any duties. [1174-C]
G
2.2. The High Court granted premium to an errant officer, who did
not obey the orders of transfer and did not discharge any duty for which
conduct of his, he could have been proceeded with, in a departmental
proceeding on the charge of gross misconduct and could have been pun-
H ished. [1173-H]
S.B.I. v. ANJAN SANYAL [PATIANAIK, J.] 1167
........ 3. Merely because tbe bank authorities did not proceed against the A
respondent, as provided in paragraph 8.34(a) of Chapter VII, Volume I of
Hand Book of Staff Matters, it cannot be held that the respondent did not
absent himself from the duties without any authority. Even the higher
authorities of the bank were quite soft towards the respondent and it is
possibly for that reason they had not taken any action against him for all
B
the lapses committed by him.(1174-E-F]

4. The order of transfer having been held to be valid and the re-
spondent having not obeyed the same, and not having discharged the
duties, but yet continuing in service, how the period should be dealt with,
will depend upon the relevant rules and regulations of the Bank. The State c
Bank of India Officers' Service Rule deal with the said situation and,
therefore, the competent authority of the bank would deal with the same.
But the order of the High Court directing the bank to pay the salary and
other benefits to the respondent for the period during which he was absent
in an unauthorised manner is set aside. (1175-H; 1176-A-B]
D
Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala, [1990) 4 SCC 744 and Syndica!e Bank v.
K. Umesh Nayak, [1994) 5 SCC 572, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 226of1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.96 of the Calcutta High Court E
in F.M.A.T. No. 813 of 1993.

H.N. Salve, Solicitor General, Rajeev Dhavan, Sanjay Kapur and Ms.
Shubhra Kapur for the Appellant.

S.S. Ray, Sanjay Sen, S.K. Bhattacharjee and Mrs. Sada Chandra for F
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATTANAIK, J. The State Bank of India is in appeal against the
judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench G
upheld the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, who
had set aside an order of transfer of an officer in Middle Management Grade
II of the State Bank. The respondent had been appointed as a Probationary
Officer in the State Bank in the year 1971 and had been posted at Calcutta.
In 1982, he was transferred to Port Blair, but instead of joining at Port Blair, H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A be remained on leave from 1.7.82 till 15.4.1984. The management of the bank
ultimately posted the respondent to Narkeldanga Branch at Calcutta and the
·-
earlier orders of transfer to Port Blair was not given effect to. This order had
been passed in April, 1984. After the respondent continued at Calcutta for
two years, on 14th of June, 1986, the Branch Manager of Narkeldanga Branch
at Calcutta was intimated that a decision has been taken to transfer the
B
respondent to the Central Office at Mumbai. The respondent again evaded
to go to Mumbai and on the other hand, went on filing representations
requesting for cancellation of his transfer to Mumbai. Again from 19.10.86,
the respondent applied for leave anddid not join the office. On 8.1.1987, the
Branch Manager of Narkeldanga Branch advised the respondent that he has
c been relieved from the Calcutta office and he should join at Mumbai. On
5.12.1987, the respondent made a representation, seeking canceUation of his
transfer to the Central Office at Mumbai. That representation, however was
never allowed and the bank authorities went on reminding the respondent that
he has been transferred to the Central Office and he should join the Central
D Office at Mumbai. On 16th of January, 1988, respondent made yet another
representation, praying. for canceUation of his transfer. The mothf!r of the
respondent, then made a complaint to the General Manager, alleging that her
son is being harassed. This complaint was made in the year 1991. Th<! General
Manager, therefore, called upon the Deputy General Manager to ascertain and
E advise, as to whether the respondent has received the communication of }
having been transferred to Mumbai. On 9.7.1991, the bank informed the
respondent that he is absenting from duty unauthorisedly, and therefore, he
should report for duty within three days at Calcutta and explain the reasons
for absence. On 19.7.91, the respondent was again posted temporarily at
M.B.Street at Calcutta. On 8.8.91, be was then transferred to Siliguri, and was
F directed to report to Deputy General Manager, Siliguri. Instead of joining at
Siliguri, the respondent filed a writ petition, challenging the order of transfer
to Siliguri. While entertaining the writ petition, the Single Judge passed an
interim order, directing the respondent to obey the transfer order and report
at Siliguri, but he never obeyed the same. On the other hand, he approached
G the Division Bench, assailing the said order. The Division Bench also by its
order dated 10.2.92, directed the respondent to join his new posting at Siliguri
within fifteen days. The respondent being aggrieved by the said directions,
approached this Court in a special leave petition, which however was
dismissed on 30.3.92. Even, thereafter, the respondent did not join at Siliguri.
H The learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court, however delivered the
S.B.I. v. ANJAN SANYAL [PATIANAIK, J.] 1169

-~ judgment in the writ petition on 10.3.93 and allowed the same, setting aside A
"" the orders of transfer. The bank went in appeal to the Division Bench and
by the impugned judgment, the appeal having been dismissed, the bank has
approached this Court.

The learned Single Judge did notice the fact that ordinarily, writ Court
does not interfere in the matters of transfer, but yet being of the opinion that B
in the case in hand, it is not a case of transfer simplicitor and on corning to
the conclusion that the order of transfer from Narkeldanga Branch to Mumbai,
not having been served on the respondent, the said transfer orders could not
have been given effect to, even if being aware of such order of transfer, the
concerned employee might have filed representations. The learned Single c
Judge also relied heavily upon the fact that even though, the respondent wrote
to the Personnel Manager on 12th January, 1988 that he has not been
instructed to report to the Chief Officer (Personnel Administration), Central
Office, Mumbai, but no reply was received by him. The learned Single Judge,
ultimately came to the conclusion that the order of transfer had not been
D
served on the employee and as such in the eyes of law, the employee had
not been directed to join any office, after he was released from the Narkeldanga
main Branch of the bar>A. The subsequent period, therefore, must be held to
be in a state of suspended animation till July, 1991 and as such the employee
would be entitled to claim all benefits of increments and promotion on the
{ basis that he was actually discharging his duties, throughout the span of the E
intervecing five years. So far as the order of transfer to Siliguri is concerned,
the Court even interfered with the same, on the ground that until and unless
the respondent gets his due promotion at regular intervals, and gets all the
emoluments for the past period, he cannot be transferred to Siliguri, as he
may have to serve under an officer who might have been junior to him and F
it will be cruel to send him in the improvised condition, thereby reducing him
into a pauper in the place of his new posting. The Single Judge, therefore,
directed that the respondent cannot be held to have been transferred from
Narkeldanga main branch in December, 1986 or any time, thereafter and he
must be treated as if he was on duty throughout the period from January, 1987
G
to July, 1991 with all its attendant benefits of getting regular monthly
emoluments, the annual increments and the chances of promotion at regular
intervals and unless all the steps are taken, the question of transferring the
respondent to any place other than the Narkeldanga Main Branch cannot and
does not arise. We are indeed shocked to find this sort of order from the High
Court, in a matter of transfer and the pourt seems to have taken the view H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A that an officer of the State Bank of India in the Middle Management Grade
IT can only be allowed to continue at Narkeldanga Branch at Calc:utta and
..., _i
nowhere else in the country.

On appeal being filed before the Division Bench, the perfonnance of
the Division Bench was no better. The learned Judges of the Division Bench
B
reaffirmed the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that no fom1al order
of transfer had been issued and served upon the respondent, transfening him
from Narkeldanga Branch to the Central Office at Mumbai. The perversity
of the approach of the Division Bench is apparent from the fact that the
learned Judges did refer to the letter of the respondent dated 19th of October,
c 1986 and held that even though, the respondent did not deny the ,existence
of the order of transfer, but nowhere he had stated that be had seen or bad
been served with the order of transfer and there was no admission on the part
of the respondent about the existence of the order of transfer. The High Court
has totally lost sight of the fact that it was dealing with the legallity of an
D order of transfer of an employee and not dealing with a criminal case, where
the conviction had been maintained on the basis of a confessional statement.
The further perversity of the Division Bench was that it canie to hold that
if in fact the respondent had been transfened from Calcutta to Mumbai, in
that event, Calcutta office must have lost all control or jurisdiction over .the
service of the respondent and the respondent should be treated to be an officer
E }
Under the administrative control of the Central Office, Mumbai, and therefore,
the respondent could not have been posted by the Calcutta Office temporarily
at Muktaram Babu Street Branch of the State Bank of India. To say the least,
when the employer takes a sympathetic attitude and taking into account the
fact that the employee is not going out of Calcutta for the last so many years,
F even if transfened and a posting is given to the employee, somewhere in
Calcutta, that has been considered by the Court to hold that the earlier order
of transfer to Mwnbai never existed. We also do not find any justification
for the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court to go into the question about
the admissibility of drawing travelling allowance and daily allowance and
G then come to a conclusion that the things have been dealt with in a cavalier
fashion and there was no order of transfer to Mumbai. The Court ultimately
canie to hold that there is no question of going into the validity of tl1e transfer,
-which was neither issued nor conveyed to the person concerned and which
had no actual or factual existence at all but only a myth. This conclusion of
the Division Bench with utmost respect must be held to be a conclusion on
H
S.B.I. v. ANJAN SANYAL [PATIAi'lAIK, J.] 1171
sunnises and conjectures and we really fail to understand how the Division A
Bench of the High Court has come to the aforesaid conclusion, in view of
the series of correspondence, which we will refer later. It is also further
surprising that the fact that while posting the respondent at Muktaram Babu
Street Branch, the order had not indicated about the cancellation of the earlier
order of posting at Mumbai and it would be possible for any Court of law
B
to come to a conclusion that there had been no order of transfer as such. The
Court then holds the employer liable and guilty of lapses and on that score,
allows the salary and emoluments as well as other service benefits from 17th
December, 1986. The Court also records a conclusion that the employee
should not suffer because of deliberate lapses and negligence on the part of
the bank and the bank cannot take advantage of its own wrong done to the c
employee for so many years. It is curious to note that an employee serving
in an All Iudia Organisation, where the service is transferable, could be
allowed to flout the orders of transfer on the so-called pretext that the order
of transfer had not been served upon him and then would be allowed to draw
his emoluments on an erroneous finding that the bank was negligent in not D
serving the orders of transfer. This case is a glaring instance where the Court
in its anxiety to help an employee, recorded the conclusions contrary to the
relevant materials and acived at findings on surmises and conjectures, even
in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti-
tution of India.
E
Ao order of transfer of an employee is a part of the Service conditions
and such order of transfer is not required to be interfered with lightly by a
Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the Court finds
that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer
or that the authorities, who issued the order, had not the competence to pass F
the order. The Central Board of the State Bank of India in exercise of powers
conferred under sub-section(!) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act,
1955, have framed a set of rules called the State Bank of India Officers
Service Rules. Rule 47 thereof, unequivocally provides that every officer is
liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or to any place or
G
deputation to any other organisation in India. Rule 49 of the said rules,
stipulates the joining time, which an employee is entitled to when he is
transferred to a new place from his old post. Rule 50 casts an obligation on
the employee to comply with and obey all lawful and reasonable orders and
directions, which may from time to time be given to him. Rule 50(1) may
be quoted herein-below in extenso: H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.

A "Rule 50( 1) : Every officer shall confonn to and abide by these rules
and shall observe, comply with and obey all lawful and reasonable
orders and directions which may from time to time be given to him
by any person under whose jurisdiction, superintendence or control
he may for the time being be placed."

B Any violation of the aforesaid rules, constitutes a misconduct under Rule 66
and becomes punishable under Rule 67. With this background, when we
consider the legality of an order of transfer, alleged to have been passed on
14.6.1986, after the employee had continued in Calcutta for mom than a
decade and the said order has not been held by the High Court either to be
C mala fide or that the competent authority had not passed the order, it is indeed
difficult to come to a conclusion that the said order had not been passed nor
had been communicated to the employee concerned. Mr. RN.Salve, the
learned Solicitor General, appearing for the State Bank of India, invited our
attention to the letter of the respondent addressed to the General Manager
D (Operations), State Bank of India, Calcutta Local Head Office, where- under
the respondent bad requested to defer his transfer upto June, 1987 and in that
Jetter in the very first paragraph, the respondent in no uncertain tenns had
indicated that the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Narkeldanga
Branch, has addressed to me by his Jetter dated 9th October, 1986, which he
alleged to have received on 16th of October, 1986, informing him about his
E
transfer to the Central Office at Mumbai. In the teeth of the aforesaid letter
of the respondent, we are little surprised to find the conclusion of tl1e learned
Judges of the Calcutta High Court, both the Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench in entering into an arena of conjecture and come to a
conclusion that there had been no existence of an order of transfer nor the
F same had been communicated to the respondent. The Branch Manager of
Narkeldanga Branch had addressed a letter to the respondent on 8th of
January, 1987, intimating him that he has been relieved of his duties from
the said Branch. The respondent again in his Jetter dated 5th of December,
1987 addressed to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, categori-
G cally stated that he had been infonned by the Branch Manager, State Bank
of India, Narlceldanga Branch, about his transfer to Central Office at Mumbai
and he prayed for cancellation of the said posting and consider the desirability
of posting him at a suitable place in Calcutta. The State Bank of India,
Calcutta Branch, immediately replied to the aforesaid letter of the respondent,
H infonning him that as per the records, he had been relieved from Narkeldanga
)

S.B.I. v. ANJAN SANYAL [PAITANAIK, J.] 1173
Branch at the close of business on 6th December, 1986, with instructions to A
report to the Chief Officer, Central Office, Mumbai by their letter dated 14th
December, 1987, to which the respondent replied by his letter dated 12th
January, 1988. Even in that letter, the respondent stated that even though, he
has been relieved from the Narkeldanga Branch w.e.f. 6th December, 1986,
but he had not been instructed to report to the Chief Officer (Personnel
B
Administration), Central Office, Mumbai, would itself indicate the frivolous
pretext of the employee, as in all earlier letters he had been candid enough
to state that he had been transferred to the Central Office at Mumbai. In view
of the aforesaid correspondence between the employee and the employer, we
are indeed surprised, how the High Court could rely upon a sentence in the
letter of 30tli April, 1991, wherein a mention had been made that the officer c
concerned was not advised in writing by the Branch at the material time and
it is on the basis of this sentence, the High Court jumped to the conclusion
that neither there existed an order of transfer nor it had been communicated
to the respondent. The bank authorities, on the other hand, have been
repeatedly intimating the respondent that he is remaining absent without
D
joining at the place to which he was transferred but yet the employee
concerned did not comply with the order in question. Having desperate in
their attempt to give effect to a lawful order of transfer, when the authorities,
took a sympathetic attitude and posted the respondent temporarily to M;.B.
·- Street, Calcutta on 19.7.1991 and then transferred him to Siliguri on 8.8.1991,
!
the High Court finds fanlt with the same, on the ground that he having been E
already transferred to Mumbai, could not have been posted to the M.B. Street,
Calcutta without cancellation of the earlier order and further could not have
been transferred to Siliguri. This in our view is an entirely erroneous approach
of the High Court in dealing with the legality of an order of transfer.
The entire fact situation unerringly point out to one fact namely the respond- F
ent flouted the orders of transfer, did not join the place of posting, did not
apply for or take leave for his absence, did not discharge his duties, and
yet the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, not only
set aside the order of transfer on a pretext which does not appeal to ns
with regard to the non-communication of the orders of transfer and
even directed that the respondent would be entitled to his salary, increment,
G
promotion and then only, could be considered for further transfer to any\\flere
else. To us, it appears that the High Court has granted premium to an errant
officer, who did not obey the orders of transfer and did not discharge any
duty for which conduct of his, he could have been proceeded with, in a
departmental proceeding on the charge of gross misconduct and could have H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A been punished.
~
Mr. S.S. Ray, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent,
strongly argued that an officer of a bank could not be orally transferred and,
therefore if there does not exist an order of transfer or if the said order had
not been conununicated to the employee concerned, the Court would be
B justified in holding that the so-called transfer is illegal and invalid. From the
series of correspondence, referred to by us earlier and in view of unequivocal
statement of the respondent therein, it is difficult for us to hold that there did 'f
not exist any order of transfer and that the respondent did not know of the
same. On the other hand, lve are persuaded to come to the conclusion that
c the respondent was fully aware of the orders of transfer and tried to evade
the same by adopting all possible pretexts and continued to remain absent
without discharging any duties. Mr. Ray, then contended that under the
guidelines contained in the Hand-Book of Staff Matters, Volume I, paragraph
8.34(a) of Chapter VIII deals with a situation where an officer remains absent >-
in an unauthorised manner. The very fact tl1at the said procedure had not been
D
adhered to in the case in hand, justifies the ultintate conclusion of the learned
Single Judge of the High Court that the order of transfer had not been served
nor the employee had been directed to join the otlice at Mumbai. We are
unable to accept this contention inasmuch as merely because the bank
authorities did not proceed against the respondent, as provided in paragraph
E 8.34(a), it cannot be held that the respondent did not absent hintself from the )t
duties without any authority. To us. it appears that even higher authorities of
the bank at Calcutta were quite soft towards the respondent and it is possibly
for that purpose, had not taken any action against him for all the lapses
committed by hint. On tl1e materials on record, we are not in a position to
F agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the order of transfer dated 14.6.86,
transferring the respondent to the Central Office at Mumbai was in any way )<
illegal and invalid and can be held to be null and void. On the other hand,
a valid order of transfer had been issued and the employee concerned had
been relieved of his duties but instead of joining the place of posting, the
G
employee concerned went on representing the authorities and openly diso-
beyed the orders of transfer. We are also of the opinion that there was no
infrrrnity with the order dated 8.8.1991, transferring the respondent to Siliguri
and the High Court was totally in error in interfering with the said order on
the hypothesis that until and unless the respondent get his emoluments for
.
H the entire period as well as promotion, question of transferring hint out of
S.B.l. v. ANJAN SANYAL [PATIANAIK, J.] 1175
Narkeldanga Branch does not arise. Such a conclusion is not permissible to A
be drawn on the fact situation and we, therefore, unhesitatingly set aside the
same. We further hold that the order of transfer to Siliguri was also valid and
the respondent did flout the same.

So far as the direction of the High Court regarding the salary and other
B
pecuniary benefits are concerned, Mr. Ray, contended that for an employee
of the bank in the absence of any rules, the principle of 'no work no pay'
can be made applicable and so long as the relationship of master and servant
continues and the service has not come to an end, the employee is entitled
to his salary. It is in this context, Mr. Ray relied upon two decisions of this
Court, the case of Bank of India v. TS. Kelawala and Others, [1990] 4 SCC C
744 AND Syndicate Bank and Anr. v. K. Umesh Nayak, [1994] 5 SCC 572.
The latter one is a Constitution Bench decision. In the first case, referred to
by Mr. Ray, the question for consideration was if an employee takes recourse
to strike or go slow or any other method, resulting in no work for the whole
day or days, then whether the Management will be entitled to deduct pro rata D
or otherwise wages of the participating workmen notwithstanding absence of
any stipulation in the contract of employment or any provision in the service
rules, regulations or standing orders. Mr. Ray relied upon the observations
made in the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 22, to the effect- "Where the
contract, Standing Orders or the service rules/regulations are silent on the
E
subject, the management has the power to deduct wages for absence from
duty when the absence is a concerted action on the part of the employees
and the absence is not disputed." In the latter Constitution Bench decision
also, the Court was considering whether workers having been on strike,
whether wages could be paid or the theory of 'no work no pay' would apply.
Mr. Ray contended that the ratio in the aforesaid case is that unless the rules F
permit, the respondent would be entitled to the salary. In the Constitution
Bench decision, the Court has observed that to entitle the workmen to
the wages for the strike period, the strike has to be held both legal
and justified and whether the strike is legal or justified are questions of fact
to be decided on the evidence on record. Applying the same to the facts of G
the present case, the order of transfer having been held by us to be valid and
the employee having not obeyed the same, and not having discharged the
duties, but yet continuing in service, how the period should be dealt with,
will depend upon the relevant rules and regulations of the Bank. We are told
that the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules deal with the said H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A situation, and, therefore, the competent authority of the bank would deal with
the same. But we have no hesitation in setting aside the directions of the High
Court, directing the bank to pay the salary and other benefits to the respond-
ent in the case in hand. In the aforesaid premises, we set aside the judgment
of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of Calcutta
High Court and allow this appeal. The writ petition filed by the respondent
B
in the High Court stands dismissed.

V.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

'