Labour Court No. Vii vs Smt. Nisha Arora Raised An Industrial on 5 September, 2007
(V) Aditya Nath Banerjee Vs. State Bank of India and others,
Calcutta, 226-II LLJ, 74.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)S. K. Seth vs Rites Ltd Through Its on 6 September, 2011
10. Reliance placed by the learned counsel representing the applicant on another judgment of Calcutta High court in Aditya Nath Banerjee v State Bank of India [2005 LawSuit(CAL) 539 = 2006 (2) LLJ 74] is equally misplaced. Brief facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the petitioner sought resignation on 11.10.2001. He submitted his resignation in prescribed manner on 28.12.2001 through proper channel. He was informed vide letter dated 19.4.2002 that his prayer for resignation had been duly forwarded to the appropriate authority for consideration. Vide another letter dated 2.5.2002 the petitioner was asked to appear for an interview before the 2nd respondent on 6.5.2002 at the zonal office. He appeared in terms of the letter aforesaid before the 2nd respondent and narrated his problem. He was verbally advised by the 2nd respondent to seriously consider about withdrawal of his resignation. The 3rd respondent vide letter dated 12.6.2002 intimated the petitioner that his resignation had been accepted by the appropriate authority with immediate effect, but before leaving the Bank the petitioner was to liquidate the Banks loan advances as mentioned therein. After receipt of the letter dated 12.6.2002 the petitioner allegedly intended to serve a copy of the representation dated 30.6.2002 before the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent praying for withdrawal of his resignation. It was his case that the said letter could not be served on 13.6.2002, but the office of the 3rd respondent duly received the same on 14.6.2002, i.e., before the date the resignation was to become effective. One plea that was taken in support of the petition was that in terms of the letter dated 12.6.2002 the petitioner neither liquidated the loan advances of the Bank nor submitted his claim for terminal benefits in terms of the letter dated 15.6.2002 and accordingly the letter dated 14.6.2002 communicating the decision of appropriate authority regarding acceptance of resignation had not become final. In the facts as mentioned above, the question that came to be decided was as to whether the resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted before the withdrawal, and whether in a prospective resignation withdrawal can be made before the receipt of the communication of the acceptance. The High Court held as follows:
1