M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE skeletal facts in this appeal as emerged are not in dispute. A letter of resignation dated 1-12-1986 was received by the appellants-management on 2-12-1986 from the respondent-employee to the effect that since the employee is not enjoying the management s confidence, she has decided to resign from the organisation. The employee offered her resignation to be processed as per Rules. It was further brought to the notice of the management that she had got 75 days earned leave and 70 days half pay leave to her credit; thus after adjusting 30 days earned leave towards the notice period, she may be granted leave for the balance period of earned leave and half pay leave and she may be relieved on the day her leave expires. The management vide letter dated 15-12-1986 intimated that the competent authority has accepted her resignation and after adjusting the leave of 31 days towards the notice period and granting 36 days from 28-11-1986 to 2-1-1987 as the earned leave, she would stand relieved on the afternoon of 2-1-1987. Final dues would be settled only on the receipt of no due certificate from the concerned authority. The employee wrote a letter on 13-12-1986 withdrawing her resignation, which was stated to be received by the authorities on 16-12-1986. The order accepting the resignation was concedingly despatched on 17-12-1986 i. e. , after the withdrawal letter was received. The acceptance of resignation was still in the office of the management. Though in spite of the fact that the order was despatched on 17-12-1986 after the receipt of the withdrawal of the resignation, the same was received by the employee on 23-12-1986.

( 2 ) IT is accepted at the bar and even from the letter accepting the resignationthat dues will be settled only when "no due certificate" is issued as well as the salary for the period of the leave etc. , was to be paid on the expiry of the due date of the month i. e. , on the first of each calendar month that the salary of the December will be payable in January, a reading of the letter tendering resignation as well as acceptance of resignation leaves us in no manner of doubt that the relationship of master and servant was never brought to an end on or before 2-1-1987. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the relationship of master and servant has been brought to an end on 15-12-1986 when the resignation of the respondent was accepted. Thus the withdrawal on 13-12-1986 is of no consequence. We find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants specially in view of the undisputed fact that though acceptance of the resignation has become final on 15-12-1986, which was never disputed by the office, mere acceptance of the resignation in the office without being put into transmission cannot be termed to be acceptance of resignation. Be that as it is, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that mere acceptance of the resignation brings about an end to the relationship of master and servant irrespective of the fact whether it was put into. transmission or brought to the notice of the employee. Mere passing of the order by itself would not terminate the relationship of master and servant as the management is always at liberty to withdraw the order passed before the same is implemented. There is no implementation of the order though passed on the record till 2-1-1987 with effect from the date the employee was accepted to be relieved from the service. In pith and substance, reading of the letter of offer of resignation and acceptance of the same in its totality leaves us with no doubt that the relationship of master and servant is being brought to an end only with effect from 2-1-1987 and it would be well within the right of the employee to withdraw the resignation and continue the relationship of master and servant before the final end is brought to the said relationship.

( 3 ) IN view of the facts stated above, the relationsh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document