P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

SOFT AID Computer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amol Narayan Shinde (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:4378) - (High Court of Bombay) (30 Jan 2024)

An employee has right to withdraw resignation not only before its acceptance but also before the date of actual relieving

MANU/MH/0525/2024

Labour and Industrial

The Petitioner-Employer has filed present petition challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court, reversing the decision of the Labour Court and allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent-employee. The Industrial Court has directed the Petitioner to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the Respondent in lieu of his reinstatement.

Contents of Petitioner’s reply dated 27 September 2019 belie the theory of acceptance of resignation on 4 September 2019. On the contrary, Petitioner took a stand in the reply that Respondent was to be relieved from services from 30 September 2019. However, no communication is brought on record to demonstrate that Respondent was given intimation about acceptance of his resignation or about his proposed relieving from 30 September 2019. The conclusion reached by the Industrial Court about non-acceptance of resignation on 4 September 2019 cannot be seriously flawed.

It is settled law that an employee has right to withdraw resignation not only before its acceptance but also before the date of actual relieving. In the present case, Respondent has expressed willingness to resume duties by not only denying tendering of any resignation but also by stating that "you may handover the signed blank papers to my client". Therefore, no serious error can be traced in the order of the Industrial Court in holding that the resignation was withdrawn.

In ordinary course, after holding that the resignation was partially withdrawn, the Industrial Court could have directed reinstatement with full backwages. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the unsavory relationship between the parties, the Industrial Court has directed payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement. If the relief of backwages was to be granted in favour of the Respondent, the same would have been much higher than the amount of compensation awarded by the Industrial Court. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court to be unexceptionable. Petition dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   DIRECTION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved