N. A. PRABHU Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the Union Bank of India, challenges Ext. P1 order suspending him from service, pending "investigation/enquiry". The order is said to be no longer in force: according to the Bank, it has been revoked after the petitioner was found guilty at the enquiry and a penalty of witholding three increments was imposed on him. Yet counsel would suggest that a pronouncement by this court, on the legality of Ext. P1, is absolutely essential.

(2.) The ground of attack is that under the industry wide settlement dated 19-10-1966, a bank employee could be suspended only after the framing of charges against him and the ordering of an enquiry into the charges; it is complained that no charges had been framed, and no enquiry ordered, by the time Ext. P1 was issued.

(3.) The law relating to an employer's power to suspend an employee-or a master's power to forbid a servant from working-is now well settled. The power to suspend is not an implied term in any contract of employment: it has to be found either in the express terms of the contract, or in statutory prescriptions governing the same. Even in the absence of express contract or statutory authorisation, however, an employer can keep out an employee from work, but then, he will be bound to pay full wages for the period of such non employment. The law of master and servant recognises the employer's right to hire and fire, but not to keep the contract of employment itself in suspension. In his own interest, the employer may keep away the employee from the work-place, but such a unilateral decision will not relieve the former of his obligation to perform his part of the contract, namely, to pay wages to the latter during the period he is so kept out. Of course, this position, as already observed is subject to contract or any law having an impact on its terms.