Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal has observed that a master-servant relationship continues during the period of suspension and the workman is under obligation to follow all the rules governing his post during that period.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank.

What is the Background of U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank Case?

• The Petitioner was a workman in the Respondent Bank who had joined as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in June 1977. Due to disorderly behaviour, he was suspended on 14^th June 1982.
• An enquiry was conducted which found him guilty of charges and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two graded increments was advised to report for duty to the Manager at another branch office of the bank.
• On failure to join duty, the petitioner vide order dated 5th December 1984 was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service as per Clause XVI (Voluntary Cessation of Employment by Employees) of the Bipartite Agreement between Indian Bank's Association and Workmen Unions.
• The petitioner raised a dispute regarding his alleged deemed retirement before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, only after six years.
• The single judge in the writ petition filed by respondents reversed the decision. This was concurrently upheld by the division bench in an intra-court appeal.
• With respect to the delay of six years in filing the dispute on the legality of the transfer, the court held that a person sitting at home cannot by himself decide that the order is illegal and that he is not bound to comply with the same.
• There was no error with orders passed by the High Court, the bench dismissed the appeal.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Failure to avail of any remedy also would mean that the petitioner 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.

What is the Concept of ‘Vicarious Liability’?

• Meaning:
  • ‘Vicarious liability’ deals with master and servant relationships. It means that it is based on two Latin maxims.
  • Firstly, the principle of qui facit per se alium facit per se, which means, He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself and the other one is ‘Respondent Superior’ which means, a principle must answer for the facts of his subordinate.
  • Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts, and one does not incur any liability for the acts done by others.
  • In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of one person for the act of another person, may arise.
  • In order that the liability of A for the act done by B can arise, it is necessary that there should be a certain kind of relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in certain way, connected with that relationship. Thus, employers are vicariously liable for the tort which their employees commit during the course of employment.
• There are various examples of liability, i.e.,
  • Liability of Principal and Agent.
  • Liability of Master and Servant.
  • Liability of Partners in each other tort.
• Related Case Law:
  • Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Or. V. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (1977):
    • SC in its judgement overruled the judgement of the High Court and held that from the facts of the case it was clear that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the manager who was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment and therefore, the respondent company was liable for his negligent act.