A voluntary resignation, once accepted by the employer, cannot be withdrawn by the employee unless it is done before the resignation becomes effective.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is directed against Order dated 25th March, 1992 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17386 of 1985 (reported in 1992 Lab IC 2257). By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed writ petition assailing the award passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad in Abahi-V No. 43 of 1984. The said proceedings before the Labour Court arose out of a Reference made under Section 4A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for decision of the question whether it was correct and legal not to take on duty their employee N.K. Prasad, Tachnical/Printing Operator by the employer on 22-1-1984 if not, what gain/relief, the concerned employee is entitled for and with what other detail. By the Award dated 12-6-1985 the Labour Court dismissed the said proceedings inter alia on the finding that the concerned employee had tendered resignation voluntarily which was acted upon by the employer and it was appropriate and legal not to take the said employee on duty by the employer and the said employee was also not entitled to any relief.

3. Such award was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition which has been dismissed by the High Court. The High Court has indicated that the employee had tendered resignation voluntarily and such resignation had been accepted by the employee who had also forwarded the salary for the period mentioned in the letter of resignation and the concerned employee had also accepted such payment, but had not returned the same even though he disputed the case of voluntary resignation. The High Court was of the view that as the said voluntarily resignation had been accepted the service of the employee had come to an end. Therefore, no interference was called for against the impugned award of the Labour Court.

4. Mr. Agarwal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the letter of resignation had not been voluntarily and willingly given by the appellant, but since he was threatened with proposed departmental proceedings he was coerced to submit a letter purporting to be a voluntary resignation on 28th September, 1983. But when by the letter dated 30th September, 1983, the appellant was informed about the acceptance of the alleged voluntary resignation, he, in writing, protested against such acceptance by contending that such resignation was not voluntarily given by him and such resignation should not be given effect to and he would be permitted to join his duty.

5. Mr. Agarwal has submitted that unfortunately the Labour Court has come to the finding that the resignation was voluntarily tendered by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is constrained to proceed on the footing that the letter of resignation had been voluntarily given by him. He has, however, submitted that even then the appellant had indicated his intention to withdraw the said letter of resignation in no uncertain term. Mr. Agarwal has submitted that the law is well-settled that if a resignation is to take effect from a prospective date and before the expiry of such date, if, the person tendering resignation intends to withdraw the same, no effect can be given to such voluntary resignation. Therefore, in any event, such intention having been made known to the concerned authority, the said resignation letter had lost its force before it could become 559 effective. In the aforesaid facts, it was not permissible for the employer to advance the date of resignation and to accept the same from such advanced date.

6. In support of such contention, Mr. Agarwal has referred to the decisions of this Court reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301 : (AIR 1978 SC 694, 1989 Suppl (2) SCC 175 : (AIR 1989 SC 1083), 1987 Suppl SCC 228 : (AIR 1987 SC 2354). Relying on the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Agarwal has submitted that on first of October, 1983, namely, three days after the said letter of resignation, the appellant informed the conce