Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Leaned senior counsel Mr. J.P. Cama, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the resignation which is prospective in nature can always be withdrawn by the employee before the effective date mentioned in such resignation. Mr. Cama further submitted that it is not open to the management to accept the resignation with immediate effect when the employee has mentioned a specific date in the resignation from which such resignation is to come into effect. Mr. Cama further submitted that option is always available with the employee to withdraw the resignation which is prospective in nature and the employee can exercise such option of withdrawing such resignation before the due date and that it is not open for the management to accept such resignation in advance. He further submitted that when the appellant had exercised her option of withdrawing the resignation, which was an unconditional resignation, it was not open for the respondent-Trust to refuse such request for withdrawal of the resignation and to prevent her from discharging her duties. It is submitted by Mr. Cama that when a resignation is given effective from future date, the option is available only to the employee to withdraw it before such date but there is no option left with the management to accept it before such due date.

the letter dated 21st January, 1986 sent by the employee fully complied with the terms of this clause. Though the letter was written in January, 1986 the employee gave more than three clear months' notice and stated that he wished to resign with effect from 30th of June, 1986 and so the resignation would have become effective only on that date. The other interpretation is that, when an employee gives a notice of resignation, it becomes effective on the expiry of three months from the date thereof. On this interpretation, the respondent's resignation would have taken effect on or about 21st April 1986 even though he had mentioned a later date. In either view of the matter, the respondent's resignation did not become effective till 21st April 1986 or 30th June 1986.

12. So far as the factual aspect of the present case is concerned, it is not in dispute that the appellant had sent a letter of withdrawal of the resignation before the date mentioned in the said resignation became effective.

Considering the case law on the subject, we are of the view that in the normal circumstances and in the absence of any other factual aspect of the matter, it was always open to the appellant to withdraw her resignation before its effective date and before the resignation came into effect. So far as the argument of Mr. Cama on this point is concerned, we accordingly uphold the same that a resignation given with prospective date can be withdrawn even during the notice period, subject to rider that the same has not come into effect and subject to any contract to the contrary between the parties in that behalf. Even the learned counsel for the respondent has fairly submitted that it cannot be disputed that an employee can always withdraw his resignation before it becomes effective. However, the main controversy which is required to be considered in this matter is as to whether the Tribunal has committed any error in considering the factual aspect of the matter for coming to the conclusion that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was irrevocable in nature or that there must have been an implied agreement between the parties not to withdraw such resignation given by the petitioner. So far as the aforesaid aspect of the case is concerned, the case is required to be considered from its background.

In spite of this after considerable time and having realised that the date of effective resignation is coming nearer, the appellant submitted her letter withdrawing the resignation by writing the said letter of withdrawal on 9-9-2003. It is also pertinent to note that even in her said letter of 9-9-2003 she has not referred to the earlier letter of the management dated 8-4-2003 wherein the management had said that the said letter of resignation was final and irrevocable. She has ignored the said aspect totally. In her letter of withdrawal dated 9-9-2003 it is not stated by her that her resignation was never irrevocable and that she had never agreed to treat it as final even though the management had treated her resignation as final, yet in her letter of withdrawal there is no reference about the same. The management, therefore, promptly replied the letter dated 9-9-2003, written by her for withdrawal of her resignation, ig by informing her that she was not entitled to withdraw her resignation letter dated 25-3-3003 since the same was already accepted and acted upon by both the sides. It is true, as observed earlier, that acceptance of resignation by the management itself cannot be treated as a ground on which the appellant cannot withdraw the resignation if it is given from a future date and under normal circumstances and in the facts of the case, the decision of the management to accept the resignation immediately even though it is given from future date cannot prevent the employee from withdrawing such resignation but the case in hand is required to be treated from different angle as to whether on the basis of implied understanding between the parties to the litigation to the effect that the entire chapter regarding inquiry or allegation is to be treated as closed in case the resignation is given from a future date and on the basis of such implied understanding between the parties which is very clear from the correspondence which we have referred above, in our view, it was not open for the appellant to take a U-turn at the last moment putting the respondent/management into a difficult situation in the sense that in the meanwhile they have already proceeded with the procedure of recruitment of a regular Principal in the institution. Learned counsel Mr. Cama has fairly admitted that in a given case if the employee agrees to give resignation on a particular condition as a part of understanding or arrangement, such arrangement cannot be said to be opposed to public policy as such resignation in a given case if given on some understanding, the management can always act on the basis of such promise or understanding. The argument of Mr. Cama, however, is that the appellant had not shown any willingness on her part by requesting the management to drop the inquiry and the decision in this behalf is unilateral to which the appellant is not a party as the appellant had never shown her willingness to resign in case the inquiry is dropped. However, this aspect of the case is required to be considered from the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the correspondence entered into between the parties, in our view, the Tribunal is justified in drawing the inference to the effect on the basis of the understanding that the appellant had decided to quit and now she is estopped by way of her conduct to change her stand and that on the basis of which the management decided to continue with the process of regular selection and not to continue with the fact finding inquiry. It may be true that the management at its own has not decided to proceed further with the fact finding inquiry. However, looking to the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that it was decided not to proceed with the inquiry or with the allegation or counter allegation and the chapter in this connection was treated to be closed in view of the fact that the appellant had also tendered her resignation from a particular date. Even the appellant has clearly stated in her earlier letter that she was insisting for six months' notice period before the resignation comes into effect so that she can avail of her leave for the said period as even otherwise, as stated above, the letter at page 50, wherein the appellant herself has stated that the allegations and averments on either side need not be dealt with and the same are not admitted and the unpleasant dispute and controversy is thus closed in view of the letter of the management dated 8-4-2003. The appellant therefore, very well knew that there is an understanding between the parties to treat the chapter closed and the letter written by the appellant at page 50 clinches the issue beyond doubt that the appellant decided to relinquish her employment from the future date in view of the particular understanding between the parties. In this connection, reference is required to be made to the English decision on which reference is also made by the Tribunal. In the case of Rev. Oswald Joseph Reichal, reported in 1889 House of Lords, Vol.XIV page 259. In the said case, Reichal had on his own free will entered into a perfectly binding agreement with the Bishop and the Bishop had agreed to abstain from commencing an inquiry into the serious charges against Reichal if the latter tendered his resignation and in pursuance of that agreement, Reichal tendered his resignation and did all to complete it, and the Bishop also abstained from instituting proceedings against him in the Ecclesiastical Court. It was found that such an agreement with consideration and having acted upon and consummated before the supposed withdrawal of the resignation of Mr. Reichal, Reichal, who could not, therefore, be permitted to upset the agreement at his unilateral option and withdraw the resignation without the consent of the Bishop. Considering the said aspect, it was found that Reichal's resignation had become absolute and irrevocable. Considering the said aspect, in our view, even though a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any point of time but before it becomes effective, the person tendering such resignation can always agree to make such resignation final, binding and conclusive and irrevocable and if any such agreement or understanding is arrived at, then such an agreement can always be said to be valid. In our view, even if the appellant has not written in so many words requesting the management to drop the proceedings against her, ultimately from the facts and circumstances of the case the Court can certainly draw inference even in connection with an implied understanding or agreement between the parties.