The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh in the case titled M/s New Victoria Mills & Ors. v. Shrikant Arya dated 27-09-2021 gives their views on whether the resignation of an employee can be withdrawn once it is accepted citing delay in relieving employee.
Facts of the Case:
Respondent was working as a Supervisor (Maintenance) in appellant No.1 since 1991, having been so appointed on transfer from M/s. Atherton Mills, another industrial unit set up by appellant No.2.
Since the textile industry went through difficult times at the turn of the century, a Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (MVRS/Scheme) was propounded by appellant No.3 to facilitate the voluntary retirement of employees and workers of appellant No.1 and certain other mills operated by appellant No.2. The respondent sought to avail of the opportunity under the Scheme and addressed a letter dated 12.07.2002. An aspect which caused some anguish to the respondent was that apparently there was a pre-existing dispute between appellant No.1 and the respondent, relating to deposits to be made in the provident fund account of the respondent. Respondent made a request that since the issue was not resolved, his application under the MVRS be kept suspended till the amount is deposited in his provident fund account.
A general information was issued about acceptance of letters of resignation under the MVRS on 28.05.2003 in which the name of the respondent was figured at serial No.4. However, a letter was issued by appellant no. 1 on 02.06.2003, after the cut-off date had already come into effect from 01.06.2003; informing the respondent that the said date be treated as cancelled and a new cut-off date would be informed shortly. The respondent was advised to attend to his duties. Later, the respondent addressed a letter dated 01.07.2003 requesting that his letter dated 12.07.2002 under the MVRS be treated as having been cancelled because he had changed his mind about submitting his resignation under the MVRS. On 14-07-2003 respondent's letter under the MVRS was accepted and he had to retire on July 16, 2003. Respondent filed a petition seeking quashing of order dated 14-07-2003.
High Court’s observation and Judgment:
The Single Bench ruled in favour of the respondent and held that it was “not clear” that at any point of time respondent had given an unconditional offer of resignation under the MVRS. Rather, his resignation was conditional on the payment of all dues, which included the provident fund dues which should be first cleared and paid to him. On appeal, the Division Bench has upheld the order of the Single Bench.
Submission of the Appellant:
The Appellant has submitted that once such resignation was accepted, and not even assailed, there could be no question of the respondent being permitted to resign post acceptance of the resignation.
Supreme Court’s observation and Judgment:
After hearing submissions of both the parties, the Supreme Court has held that the application submitted by the respondent under the Scheme on 12.07.2002 was in the nature of an offer but Court cannot accept the plea that vide letter dated 03.03.2003 there could be suspension of his resignation conditional on the deposit of provident fund dues which actually already were deposited (albeit a confusion over the credit to which it was named). The acceptance was also not conditional clearing of dues, including provident fund dues, as that was a consequence which would flow from the acceptance of the resignation. Thus, in pursuance of the offer and acceptance on 28.05.2003, the transaction was completed. Hence, the resignation letter of the respondent stood accepted on 28.05.2003 and the respondent is entitled to the benefits under the Scheme which have already been paid to the respondent albeit without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent in the proceedings. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Read Judgment
Share this Document :Picture Source :
