Karnataka High Court
Management Of Karnataka Road Transport ... vs M.B. Ramakrishna on 30 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: ILR2001KAR82, 2001(4)KARLJ22
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
JUDGMENT V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.
1. The respondent is an employee of the Corporation. The issue is as whether a resignation submitted once and accepted by the employer could be withdrawn by the employee. The employee in question submitted this resignation on 5-2-1994. It is alleged that it was accepted by the employer on 8-2-1994. But on 9-2-1994 before its communication or rather it became effective, the worker withdrew the same. On 11-2-1994 the order of acceptance was communicated and he was relieved of his duties and he was refused work. The worker thereupon raised a dispute before the Labour Court. It was defended by the employer contending that the resignation had become effective on 8-2-1994 on acceptance itself and the same could not have been withdrawn on 9-2-1994. It was hence contended that employer was justified in terminating the services of the worker.
2. The Labour Court upheld the contention of the employer and rejected the reference. The worker filed the writ petition from which the above appeal arises. The learned Single Judge after exhaustive consideration of the questions involved held that as on the date of withdrawal of the resignation the acceptance has not become effective and the termination as such is bad. This Court ordered reinstatement of the worker but without back wages. This order is challenged before this Court.
3. An identical question now raised by the appellant have been considered by the Supreme Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v Project and Development India and Another . The fact giving rise to the said case is as follows:
"5. From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter dated 18-10-1995 was accepted by the respondent-management by their letter dated 30-7-1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26-9-1997, which, for all practical purposes, would be the "effective date" as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7-8-1997. The question which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by the three decisions, namely, Balram Gupta v Union of India; J.N. Srivastava v Union of India and Power Finance Corporation Limited v Pramod Kumar Bhatia, in which it was held that the resignation in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the "effective date". That being so, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs".
4. The question therefore was as to what is the effective date from which the acceptance would come into operation. The Supreme Court has taken the view that effective date from which the acceptance comes into force is the date of communication of the acceptance and if before that time the employee had withdrawn the resignation, withdrawal is valid and the contract of employment is not terminated.
5. It is a settled law that an order becomes effective only on communication. It is not enough that an order is made and kept in the file. It would take effect only on communication and from the date the communication is received. Hence, if before the said date, resignation letter the basis on which the order is made, is rescinded, then, the acceptance will have no field to operate. Employment is a contract between the employer and the employee. One mode of its termination is by means of resignation. The contract would be brought to an end by tendering resignation by the employee. The resignation becomes effective only when the person to whom it is addressed accepts the same and communicates to the offerer concerned of his intention to accept the resignation. That is to say, only on communication of the acceptance the resignation comes into being and the contract is put an end to. An employee cannot abandon his duties till the employer communicates to him, the acceptance and relieves him of his duty. Hence, until such time the contract subsists. The worker will also be responsible to whatever that transpires till such communication of acceptance. In other words, the employee has a control over the worker till the acceptance of resignation and relieving him of his duty. He can direct the nature of discharge of the work by the worker till such time the worker is relieved as the relationship of master and servant subsists till then. As a corollary, the worker has also freedom till such time not to put an end to the contract of employment as well. He is in full control of this employment till the employer communicates the acceptance of the resignation and relieves him of his duty. Therefore, it is clear that since the resignation becomes effective only on the date on which the worker is relieved in pursuance to this offer of resignation, he has power to withdraw the same any day prior to it becoming effective.
6. In this case, that date happens to be 11-2-1994. But as noticed, on 9-2-1994 itself the resignation stood withdrawn. If that be so, there is no letter of resignation for being accepted. In such an event, the relieving of his duty by the worker in accepting the resignation by the employer is clearly illegal.
7. This question has been repeatedly considered by various judgments of Supreme Court. As noticed in the judgment referred to above, the crucial question would be as to date on which the resignation has become effective. The Supreme Court has categorically declared that resignation becomes effective only on the date on which the acceptance is communicated. Therefore the communication part is essential in the matter of acceptance of a resignation.
8. One another contention advanced by the worker was that the rules require a stipulated period of notice while tendering the resignation and as such, the resignation tendered can be withdrawn any time before the expiry of the said period. We do not think in the facts stated above, this question need be answered in this case. But, nevertheless, we are of the view that this contention cannot be accepted as, according to us, when once the resignation is accepted by the employer there will be cessation of contract of employment and the master and servant relationship comes to an end. To recognise the right of withdrawal of the resignation, or the right of withdrawal of the acceptance of resignation, would amount to coming into life the already extinguished contract. This may lead to other legal complications. In other words, it is as if there is a "de jure" termination and a "de facto" termination. It being a pure contractual relationship, there is no legal basis to enunciate any such principle in a matter of pure contract. We find no legal principle to arrive at such a result.
9. In this case, as disclosed from the facts of the case, the acceptance was made known as to the worker only on 11-2-1994. But before the acceptance was made, on 9-2-1994 the resignation was withdrawn. If that be so, the termination of the service of worker and denial of employment is clearly illegal and unjust. Therefore it has to be held that it was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. No costs.