2005 Supreme(SC) 1338

2005(7) Supreme 209
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
B.N. Srikrishna & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Srikantha S.M. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1404 of 2003
Decided on 7-10-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.N. Bhat, N.P. Panwar and D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K.K. Mani and K.B. Sandeep, Advocates.

Important point
Where the resignation submitted by employee was accepted by employer company on same day but by another letter of same date company sanctioned casual leave to employee and informed him to be relieved on expiry of causal, employee was entitled to withdraw his resignation before he was relieved.

Headnote:Service Law—“Resignation”—Means spontaneous relinquishment of one’s own right—Appellant was appointed as Senior Manager in respondent Company in December, 1989—He tendered a letter of resignation on January 4, 1993 and requested to treat his letter as resignation and relieve him from duties “as per Company rules”—Resignation was accepted by Deputy General Manager on same day and appellant was informed—By another letter of same date appellant was informed that his casual leave had been sanctioned from 5-1-1993 till 13-1-1993 and 14th January being holiday, he would be relieved by close of working hours on 15-1-1993—Appellant in meanwhile withdrew his resignation by addressing a letter dt. 8-1-1993 but it was not accepted—High Court dismissed the writ holding that resignation was accepted on same day and it could not have been withdrawn—Appeal—Since appellant was granted casual leave from 4-1-1993 till 13-1-1993 and was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on 15-1-1993, relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end—Appellant was entitled to withdraw his resignation on 8-1-1993 and Company acted illegally in not allowing him to work—Appellant held entitled to continuity in service and consequential benefits.

       Held : On the basis of the above decisions, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that though the respondent-Company had accepted the resignation of the appellant on January 04, 1993 and was ordered to be relieved on that day, by a subsequent letter, he was granted casual leave from January 04, 1993 to January 13, 1993. Moreover, he was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on January 15, 1993. The vinculum juris, therefore, in our considered opinion, continued and the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end on January 04, 1993. The relieving order and payment of salary also make it abundantly clear that he was continued in service of the Company upto January 15, 1993. In affidavit in reply filed by the Company, it was stated that resignation of the appellant was accepted immediately and he was to be relieved on January 04, 1993. It was because of the request of the appellant that he was continued upto January 15, 1993. In the affidavit in rejoinder, the appellant had stated that he reported for duty on January 15, 1993 and also worked on that day. At about 12.00 noon, a letter was issued to him stating therein that he would be relieved at the close of the day. A cheque of Rs. 13,511/- was paid to him at 17.30 hrs. The appellant had asserted that he had not received terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, etc. It is thus proved that upto January 15, 1993, the appellant remained in service. If it is so, in our opinion, as per settled law, the appellant could have withdrawn his resignation before that date. It is an admitted fact that a letter of withdrawal of resignation was submitted by the appellant on January 08, 1993. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Company to give effect to the said letter. By not doing so, the Company has acted contrary to the law and against the decisions of this Court and hence, the action of the Company deserves to be quashed and set aside. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in not granting relief to the appellant. Accordingly, the action of the Company as upheld by the High Court is hereby set aside. The next question is, as to what benefits the appellant is entitled to. As he withdrew the resignation and yet he was not allowed to work, he is entitled to all consequential benefits. The learned counsel for the respondent-Company no doubt contended that after January 15, 1993, the appellant had not actually worked and therefore, even if this Court holds that the action of the respondent-Company was not in consonance with law, at the most, the appellant might be entitled to other benefits except the salary which should have been paid to him. According to the counsel, the principle of “no work, no pay” would apply and when the appellant has admittedly not worked, he cannot claim salary for the said period. (Paras 26 to 28)

       For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The action of the respondent-Company in accepting the resignation of the appellant from January 04, 1993 and not allowing him to work is declared illegal and unlawful. It is, therefore, hereby set aside. The orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench upholding the action of the Company are also set aside. The respondent-Company is directed to treat the appellant in continuous service upto the age of superannuation i.e. December 31, 1994 and give him all benefits including arrears of salary. (Para 30)