Karnataka High Court
Chief Traffic Manager vs Sri B Venkatesh on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:37090
WP No. 39626 of 2016
C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.39626 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.57104 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
IN WP No.39626/2016
BETWEEN:
CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER,
BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M SRI B. VENKATESH,
Location: HIGH S/O. BALAKRISHNA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.9, 11TH CROSS,
CHINAPPA GARDEN,
BENSON TOWN POST,
BANGALORE - 560 046. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 28.8.2016 PASSED BY THE III
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:37090
WP No. 39626 of 2016
C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.4/2014, VIDE
ANNEX - F AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 57104/2016
BETWEEN:
B. VENKATESH,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGE 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.9, 11TH CROSS,
CHINNAPPA GARDEN,
BENSON TOWN POST,
BENGALURU - 560 046. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER,
B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 28.8.2015 PASSED IN
REF.NO.4/2014 BY THE HON'BLE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-A TO THE W.P. IN SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO DENIAL OF BACK WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:37090
WP No. 39626 of 2016
C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
W.P. No.39626/2016 is preferred by the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for brevity) and W.P. No.57104/2016 is preferred by the workman assailing the legality and correctness of the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.4/2014 dated 28.08.2015, wherein, the Labour Court by the impugned award directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service to his original post with continuity of service without back wages.
2. Workman joined the services of the Corporation in the year 1986, for personal and domestic reasons, the workman had submitted his resignation on 23.01.2010 and before his resignation was accepted, the workman had submitted a representation seeking withdrawal of the resignation and the resignation was withdrawn. This being so, the workman once again submitted his resignation on 08.03.2010 and requested the Corporation to permit him -4- NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 to deposit the amount for acceptance of the resignation less than a month of notice. The order of the Corporation accepting the resignation of the workman was on 12.03.2010, the workman submitted representation to withdraw the resignation, the Corporation issued an endorsement stating that there is no scope to withdraw the order of accepting resignation.
3. Aggrieved, the workman raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The claim statement was filed contending that the Corporation has not accepted the resignation as per the circular dated 05.10.1990. Further, the workman withdrew his resignation on 18.03.2010, the main contention of the workman was that, the circular which was issued on 05.10.1990 has a procedure to be followed in respect of acceptance of resignation and the circular contains four clauses under which a resignation should be accepted.
-5-NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
4. On notice, the Corporation appeared and filed their counter, inter alia, denying the averments and contending that, questioning the validity of the order of the Corporation accepting the resignation was not justified, as the workman had submitted his resignation contending that his resignation to be accepted with effect from the date of submission and the Corporation has accepted the resignation of the workman without waiting further as the resignation indicated that his resignation has to be taken forthwith. The Labour Court, by the impugned award, held that at the time of accepting the resignation, the authority did not follow the guidelines of the circular dated 05.10.1990 marked at EX.M.10 and without considering the circular/guidelines the acceptance of resignation was not appropriate and by the impugned award directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service to his original post with continuity of service without back wages.
-6-NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Corporation by reiterating the grounds urged in the petition papers mainly urged that, the resignation submitted by the workman clearly indicates his intention to resign from the post immediately, and there was no indication about any future date and having not mentioned any future date/specific future date, the Corporation has accepted the resignation submitted by the workman. The resignation submitted by the workman is clear and unconditional and the workman having not specified any future date the intention to resign was clear and the Corporation has accepted the resignation submitted by the workman. It is submitted that, in light of non-mentioning any specific date/future date, it does not create any right in favor of the employee concerned to resist the acceptance of resignation and the workman cannot place reliance on clauses (b) and (c) of the circular dated 15.10.1990. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance on the following decisions:
-7-NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
(i) M Ramakrishna vs. The Management of Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore and another1
(ii) State of Haryana and others vs. Ram Kumar Mann2
(iii) I.D. Kaushik vs. The State of Haryana and others (by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana)3.
(iv) Union of India and others vs. Hitender Kumar Soni4
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent justifies the award passed by the Labour Court and would draw the attention of this Court to the circular dated 05.10.1990, more particularly, to clause (c) of the circular and submits that if an employee intends to resign, he should give notice of his intention to resign atleast a 1 1995 SCC Online Kar 37 2 (1997) 3 SCC 321 3 Civil W.P. No.9108/1994 disposed on 12.10.1994 4 (2014) 13 SCC 204 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 month in advance and the competent authority may accept the notice of less than one month, if there are compelling circumstances warranting such acceptance.
According to the learned counsel, there were no compelling circumstances warranting such acceptance and the Corporation was not justified in accepting the resignation before the expiry of one month and the same has been rightly appreciated by the Labour Court which warrants no interference by this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is, "Whether the acceptance of resignation by the Corporation was justified in the present facts and circumstances and does the order of the Labour Court warrant any interference by this Court?"
8. The workman joined services of the Corporation in the year 1986. It is not in dispute that the workman had, on earlier occasion, submitted his resignation and the same was withdrawn by way of representation which was -9- NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 accepted by the Corporation. This being so, the petitioner again tendered his resignation on 08.03.2010 and the letter of resignation is at Annexure 'B' which reads as under:
"DzÀÝjAzÀ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄ®Ä EµÀÖ«®èzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, £À£Àß PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ gÁfãÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ F £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÉÃß gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ «ªÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¹, £À£Àß ¸ÉêÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ CAwªÀÄ C¨sÀåxÀð£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
9. The workman stated in his resignation letter that, his resignation has to be accepted forthwith, the Corporation accepted the resignation vide order dated 12.03.2010, the workman submitted a representation on 18.03.20110 to withdraw his resignation indicating and explaining the circumstances in which he had opted for resignation and same was rejected by the Corporation.
The acceptance of resignation by the Corporation made the workman approach the Labour Court. The workman's counsel contends that the guidelines under which the Corporation has issued the circular provides the procedure
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 to be followed for acceptance of resignation, it is contended that the procedure as prescribed in the circular has not been followed and as such, the order of acceptance of resignation itself is invalid and the withdrawal of resignation ought to have been accepted by the corporation. The circular dated 05.10.1990, more particularly, clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), which read as under:
"(a) Authority competent to accept
resignation:
The appointing authority in respect of service or post in question in the authority competent to accept the resignation of the employee.
(b) Circumstances under which resignation should be accepted Resignation tendered by employees to the posts held by them should normally be accepted with the least possible delay except in cases;
(i) Where the officer concerned is engaged on work of importance and it would take time to make alternative arrangements for filling the post, the resignation should not be accepted straightaway, but only when alternative arrangements for filling the post have been made.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
(ii) Where an employee who is under suspension submits a resignation, the competent authority should examine with reference to the merits of the disciplinary case pending against the employee whether it would be in the public interest to accept the resignation. Normally, as employees are placed under suspension only in cases of grave delinquency, it would not be correct to accept a resignation from an employee under suspension. Exceptions to this rule would be where the alleged offences do not involve moral turpitude or where the quantum of evidence against the accused employee is not strong enough to justify the assumption that if the departmental proceedings were continued, the employee would be removed or dismissed from service or where the departmental proceedings are likely to be co-protracted that it would be in the interest of the Corporation to accept the resignation.
( c) Procedure to be followed in accepting resignation An employee intending to resign from the post held by him should give a notice of his intention to resign at least a month in advance indicting the date from which he intends to resign. The competent authority may accept a notice of less than a month if there are circumstances
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 warranting such acceptance. A resignation becomes effective when it is accepted and the concerned employee is relieved of his duties. It is therefore necessary to see that handing over charge, recovery of dues if any from the employee and such other formalities are completed before the employee is relieved of his duties. Where however, employees tenders resignation during his unauthorized absence or leave, the resignation may be accepted absent or from the expiry of leave mentioned to him as the case may be. In such an event the question of relieving the employee of his duties does not arise and the resignation become effective on its acceptance by the competent authority.
(d) Withdrawal of resignation Where a resignation has become effective any request for its withdrawal should be summarily rejected. While a resignation has not become effective and the employee wishes to withdraw the resignation, he may be permitted by the competent authority to withdraw the resignation."
10. The Corporation has deducted one month salary while accepting the resignation of the workman. Clause
(c) of the circular indicates that, a resignation is effective
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 when it is accepted and the concerned employee is relieved from his duty. Though there is an acceptance by the Corporation in the instant case, the employee was not relieved from his duties, when the workman had submitted his withdrawal of resignation, as stated supra, clauses (c) and (d) specifically empowers the competent authority to accept the notice of less than one month if there were compelling circumstances warranting such acceptance. The compelling circumstances warranting the Corporation to accept the resignation immediately, is not forthcoming.
No reasons have been assigned by the Corporation while accepting the resignation of the workman other than stating that the resignation dated 08.03.2010 filed by the workman is accepted. In the absence of any such compelling circumstances for the employer/Corporation to accept the resignation within one month, the Labour Court was justified in holding that the Corporation was not justified in accepting the resignation of the workman and it was unjust on the part of the Corporation.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
11. The decisions placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Subramani, S/o K Ramaiah vs. Managing Director, KSRTC and another5, has held at para No.7 as under:
"7. It is not in dispute that the respondent has deducted a month's salary when accepting the resignation of the petitioner. That itself shows that the respondent has relied upon clause (c) as extracted above. Even a reading of clause (c) as extracted above do not empower the respondent to deduct the salary. What all the guidelines provides for is, a competent authority may accept the notice of less than a month if there are circumstances warranting such acceptance. As righty pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am not able to see any circumstances which warrants the Corporation to accept the resignation immediately. No indication is found. No reasons are stated in Annexure - A dated 8.9.1994, for accepting the 5 W.P. No.6809/1995 disposed on 13.09.1995
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 resignation of the petitioner is accepted. So, in the absence of any circumstances warranting immediate acceptance of resignation, I do not see any reason to up-hold the order of the respondent- Corporation. When the guidelines stated above clearly gives a procedure to be followed to accept the resignation and when the Corporation has not followed the procedure, I am of the view that Annexure-A has got to be set aside. I am not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that a distinction can be made between clause (b) and (c) of the guidelines. In my view, clause(b) and
(c) have to be read together. Clause (b) talks about the resignation should normally be accepted with the least possible delay except in certain type of cases and clause (c) provides for procedure to be followed in acceptance of resignation. If both clauses (b) and
(c) are read together, I do not see how the Corporation could accept the resignation immediately on the next day in the absence of any circumstances warranting such acceptance. It is true that the competent authority can accept a notice of less than a month if there are circumstances warranting such acceptance. If that is so, the order accepting resignation should, in my view shows the reasons for accepting resignation. In Annexure-A, that is absent.
However, I am not able to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 petitioner had second thoughts about the resignation and has given a story that he has consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced fitness certificate which shows that he has taken treatment in the hospital and it is not uncommon in these days that due to sudden rush of blood and momentary insanity some people resort to such act of attempting to commit suicide. Considering the facts of this case, I am fully satisfied that, when the resignation has been tendered by the petitioner, the Corporation should have waited for a month before accepting it. If there are compelling circumstances warranting such acceptance, the Corporation should have indicated the same in the order of acceptance. Both are absent in this case. As such, the impugned order dated 8.9.1994 shall stand set aside. Petition shall stand allowed. However, the learned Counsel for the Corporation has made a request that the Corporation should be at liberty to consider the letter of resignation dated 7.9.1994. I do not think it is possible for the Corporation to accept the resignation of the petitioner when he has already made a representation dated 20.9.1994 vide Annexure-D withdrawing his resignation."
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
13. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Basavaraj vs. The N.W.K.R.T.C.6 has observed at para Nos.24, 25, 26 and 27 as under:
"24. Before adverting to the legal consequence of this one month period it is just and necessary to bear in mind, the resignation letter of the petitioner which I have already quoted. In the resignation letter there is no mention as to when actually the said resignation has to be accepted. It is a simple letter wherein he has made a request to accept his resignation, except that there is no specification with regard to the date of acceptance of the said letter whether before the completion of one month he would like to relieve from his duties.
25. In this context it is worth to mention a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 175 between Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K.Mittal, wherein the Apex Court has observed that:
"Service Law - Resignation - Notice period for resignation - Waiver of, by employer and acceptance of resignation 6 W.P. No.86102/2013 dated 15.03.2018
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 before expiry, held, not permissible where rules silent on acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employer - Further held, the employee could withdraw his resignation before it became effective - Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 - Regulation 20(2), proviso - Scope -held, does not empower the bank to reduce unilaterally the period of notice."
26. Therefore, the above said decision makes it clear that if the employee has not mentioned any period in the resignation letter which would occur before the expiry of one month then it goes without saying that, the employer has to wait for one month for acceptance of the resignation.
27. It is also further held at paragraph No.8 of the said decision that:-
"It is true that there is no specific provision in the regulations permitting the employee to withdraw the resignation. It is, however, not necessary that there should be any such specific rule. Until the resignation becomes effective on the terms of the letter read with Regulation 20, it is open to the employee, on general principles, to withdraw his letter of resignation. That is why, in some
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 cases of public services, this right of withdrawal is also made subject to the permission of the employer. There is no such clause here. It is not necessary to labour this point further as it is well settled by the earlier decisions of this court."
14. The Apex Court, in the case of Balaram Gupta vs. Union of India and another,7 has held at para Nos.11, 12 and 13 as under:
"11. In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza [(1981) 4 SCC 335 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 599 : AIR 1981 SC 1829 : (1982) 1 SCR 438] the court struck down certain provisions of Air India Employees' Service Regulations. We are not concerned with the actual controversy. But the court reiterated that there should not be arbitrariness and hostile discrimination in the Government's approach to its employees. On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that a government servant was not entitled to demand as of right, permission to withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement, it could only be given as a matter of grace. Our attention was also drawn to the observations of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 1969 SC 180 :7
1987 (Supp) SCC 228
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 (1968) 3 SCR 857 : 1969 Lab IC 310] . There the court reiterated that till the resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation had not been accepted. But in the facts of the instant case the resignation from the government servant was to take effect at a subsequent date prospectively and the withdrawal was long before that date.
Therefore, the appellant, in our opinion, had locus. As mentioned hereinbefore the main question was whether the sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was valid and if so whether the power exercised under the sub- rule (4) of Rule 48-A was proper. In the view we have taken it is not necessary, in our opinion, to decide whether sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was valid or not. It may be a salutary requirement that a government servant cannot withdraw a letter of resignation or of voluntary retirement at his sweet will and put the Government into difficulties by writing letters of resignation or retirement and withdrawing the same immediately without rhyme or reason. Therefore, for the purpose of appeal we do not propose to consider the question whether
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules is valid or not. If properly exercised the power of the Government may be a salutary rule. Approval, however, is not ipse dixit of the approving authority. The approving authority who has the statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally. The only reason put forward here is that the appellant had not indicated his reasons for withdrawal. This, in our opinion, was sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and the appellant had a second look at the matter. This is not an unreasonable reason. The guidelines indicated are as follows:
"(2) A question has been raised whether a government servant who has given to the appropriate authority notice of retirement under the para 2(2) above has any right subsequently (but during the currency of the notice) to withdraw the same and return to duty. The question has been considered carefully and the conclusion reached is that the government servant has no such right.
There would, however, be no objection to permission being given to such a government servant, on consideration of the circumstances of his case to withdraw the notice given by him, but ordinarily such permission should not be granted unless he is in a position to show that there has
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 been a material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given.
Where the notice of retirement has been served by the Government on the government servant, it may be withdrawn if so desired for adequate reasons, provided the government servant concerned is agreeable."
12. In this case the guidelines are that ordinarily permission should not be granted unless the officer concerned is in a position to show that there has been a material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given. In the facts of the instant case such indication has been given. The appellant has stated that on the persistent and personal requests of the staff members he had dropped the idea of seeking voluntary retirement. We do not see how this could not be a good and valid reason. It is true that he was resigning and in the notice for resignation he had not given any reason except to state that he sought voluntary retirement. We see nothing wrong in this. In the modern age we should not put embargo upon people's choice or freedom. If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 job, that would be another matter but the appellant's offer to retire and withdrawal of the same happened in such quick succession that it cannot be said that any administrative set-up or arrangement was affected. The administration has now taken a long time by its own attitude to communicate the matter. For this the respondent is to blame and not the appellant.
13. We hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondent. We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty; a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize the Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out"
uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees."
15. The employers' acceptance of an employee's resignation is a formality and that does not equate to termination initiated by the employer. The resignation is a voluntary act by the employee and the employer's role is primarily passive in this context. The employer strictly require employees to provide the notice period before resignation can be accepted. If the employee fails to specify the notice period the employer may have discretion in accepting the resignation, but cannot do so with immediate effect unless regulations allow it. As stated supra, clause (b) clearly indicates the waiting period of one month and if the waiting period of one month is to be relaxed, there must be compelling reasons for acceptance of the resignation. There is nothing forthcoming in the said acceptance letter by the Corporation and accordingly,
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016 the point framed for consideration by this Court is answered against the Corporation. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the workman has attained the age of superannuation. Learned counsel appearing for the workman would fairly submit that the workman does not claim backwages from 2010 till the date of reinstatement as he has not worked during the said period, however, would contend that the workman is entitled for consequential benefits in light of the resignation being held to be unjust.
16. There is sufficient force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the workman and the workman would be entitled for consequential benefits from 12.03.2010 till the date of reinstatement and accordingly, this Court pass the following -
ORDER
(i) W.P. No.39626/2016 filed by the Corporation is hereby dismissed and W.P. No.57104/2016 filed by the workman is allowed in part.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:37090 WP No. 39626 of 2016 C/W WP No. 57104 of 2016
(ii) The workman is entitled for consequential benefits from 12.03.2010 till the date of reinstatement.
(iii) All the benefits of the workman to be settled within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) Rest of the order stands confirmed.
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16