A resignation submitted by an employee is voluntary if it is not obtained by force or undue pressure, and is unconditional if it is not made subject to any condition. The acceptance of a resignation by an employer is valid if it is made before the resignation is withdrawn, and the withdrawal of a resignation after its acceptance is ineffective in law.

JUDGMENT :

Sujata Manohar, J.—Second Respondent M.S. Phatate joined the service of the petitioner - The Premier Automobiles Ltd. in the year 1957 as a daily rated workman in the capacity of a Number Taker. In 1958 he was transferred to the Internal Audit department as a clerk. In 1974 he was transferred to the Traffic department as an intermediate clerk. While the 2nd respondent was working as an intermediate clerk in the Traffic department he claimed additional allowance on the ground that he had carried out duties as in charge of the Traffic department when the Officer-in-charge had gone on leave. This demand was not accepted by the petitioner.

2. On 1st August 1974 the 2nd respondent was promoted as a Supervisor in the Paint Shop of the petitioner by an order of promotion and transfer of that date (1.8.1974). The order stated that "effective today" (1.8.1974) he was promoted as Supervisor and transferred to Paint Shop. There is an office memo addressed to the 2nd respondent dated 3rd May 1978 by the Deputy Works Manager to the following effect:

".....you have to look after and be responsible for day to day production of Sound Deadlier and Wet Sanding Sections of Paint Shop in First Shift with immediate effect. You shall report to Shri Athale, Paint Tech., first shift Incharge Paint Shop."

There is another office memo of 29th July 1979 informing the 2nd respondent that he will have to supervise the sound deadner and wet sanding section and will be responsible for the production and quality and shall report to Mr. Karnik, Officer In-charge Paint Shop. Both these memos were addressed to the petitioner as Supervisor in the Paint Shop.

3. The 2nd respondent was throughout an office-bearer of the Premier Automobiles Employees' Union. He was the Vice-Presi-dent of this Union at the material time.

4. On 8th July 1981 the 2nd respondent addressed a confidential letter to the Managing Director of the petitioner. In the letter he has stated that he had been sent to the Paint Shop division so that he may gain financially and he was thankful to the Managing Director. But he was a non-technical man. He was isolated doing nothing and therefore requested that he should be transferred to his original department or to the security department, Administration department, Publicity, Sales department where he could keep himself busy. He also expressed his willingness to be transferred outside Bombay - to Hyderabad, Bangalore or Madras. He pointed out that he had still 16 years more and he will have to carry on a heavy burden in future. He therefore requested that looking to his loyal and unstinted devotion to his entrusted duties, if he is given due compensation at the rate of 25% for premature retirement, he would be willing to retire. He left the matter to the final decision of the Managing Director.

5. In the meanwhile apparently the petitioner came across certain irregularities in connection with the work of the 2nd respondent. A charge-sheet dated 21.7.1981 was prepared against the 2nd respondent setting out in detail various charges against the 2nd respondent. Under an order of the same date the 2nd respondent was suspended forthwith pending enquiry and final decision. The charge-sheet and order of suspension were directed to be served on the 2nd respondent on 22.7.1981 when he came to work.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that at about 8.30 a.m. on 22nd July 1981 the 2nd respondent was entering the premises through the main inner gate. He was stopped by the Assistant Security Officer and was asked to go to the Office of the Chief Security Officer. The 2nd respondent was then told that a charge-sheet and an order of suspension were to be served on him and he was offered a copy of the charge-sheet. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent refused to accept the charge-sheet. He also said that he would not accept the charge-sheet but instead of accepting it he would submit a letter of resignation from the service of the petition