An employer is entitled to accept an employee's resignation before the expiry of the notice period, even if the resignation letter contains demands for compensation or bonus.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, M/s. Dass Studios, Connaught Place, New Delhi, which is a commercial establishment under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has filed the present petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the award dated 9-7-1969 of the Labour Court, Delhi, directing the re-instatement with full back wages and continuity of the 2nd respondent herein, who was an employee under the petitioner. According to the averments in the writ petition, the second respondent, Shri Shyam Sunder, had tendered his resignation by his letter dated 17-7-1968. In that letter , the second reondent had levelled certain baseless allegations against the petitioner to the effect that he had ben ill-treated and insulted by the petitioner. The second respondent had also demanded payment of his dues keeping in view his service for 19 years and bonus for 14 years. The regisnation was to be effective from 16-8-1968. The second respondent also requested the petitioner to inform him within a week of the receipt of the letter whether his regisnation had been accepted. The petitioner thereupon accepted the regisnation of the second respondent and communicated the acceptance of regisnation by a letter dated 23-7-1968. In that letter, the second respondent was informed that his regisnation had been accepted with immediate effect. The second respondent thereupon wrote another letter dated 27-7-1968 to the petitioner starting that his resignation was a conditional one and that the petitioner could not accept his resignation without fulfilling the conditions. He, therefore, claimed to continue to be in service. The petitioner replied to the second respondent repudating the latter s claim and reiterating that the resignation had been accepted and that he could not be allowed to work in the estabishment. the second respondent thereupon raised an industrial dispute was referred to the labour court for adjudication. The labour court passed an word dated 9-7-1969 holding that the termination of service of the second respondent was illegal and unjustified and that the second respondent was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and contunity in service according to the petitioner , this award was illegal prevers, wholly without in access of jurisdication and was vitiated by errors apperent of the face of the record. The second respondent filed an affidavit in reply to the writ petition. It was stated in this affidavit that the resignation was not given with a free mind and that the letter of resignation had been obtained by the petitioner under coercion and froud. It was further stated that the letter of resignation was a conditional one and that without the fullfillment of the conditions, the resignation could not be accepted, it was ,therefore,asserted that the award of the tribunal was legal and valid and there was no ground to set is aside.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following three contentions before me, namely,

(I) that the resignation letter was not a conditional one; (ii) that even if it was a conditional resignation the petitioner was not bound to fulfil the conditions before accepting the resignation; and (iii) that it was open to the petitioner to accept the resignaltion with immediate effect notwithstanding the date fixed by the 2nd respondent for the resignation to take effect.

( 3 ) THE resignation letter is in Hindi and the original as well as its English translation had been filed along with the writ petition, the translation being Annexure a . This letter consists of two portions. The first poriton contains allegations of ill-treatment and respondent The second portion contains the notice of regisnation since there is a controversy regarding the interpretation of this portion of the letter, it is desirable to reproduce it. It may be stated that the second respondent has not challenged the correc