The main legal point established in the judgment is that the resignation must be effectively withdrawn before acceptance, and termination without the required notice period is unjustified.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petition the Petitioner impugnes the award dated 13th January, 1998 whereby it was held that the action of the Petitioner in terminating the services of the Respondent with effect from 15th November, 1982 was unjustified and it was directed that the Respondent continues in service with consequential benefits with effect from 15th November, 1982 which had accrued to her as if no termination had taken with back wages from 17th July, 1985.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the facts of the case being admitted, on expiry of the three months notice from 23rd March, 1983 when the Respondent submitted her resignation, the Respondent lost lien on the job. The withdrawal of the resignation on 2nd April, 1985 more than two years later was meaningless. The learned Trial Court failed to notice that it was a clear case of abandonment and the non-acceptance of the resignation had no bearing thereon. The time taken in acceptance of the resignation was due to the communication with Respondent regarding the adjustment of her dues for the notice period for which the Respondent did not reply and thus the Respondent cannot get benefit of her own wrong. Reliance is placed on Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Shamim Mirza (2009) 1 SCC 20; Dr. Prabha Atri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 534; Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Brij Mohan Parihar 2000 SCC (L&S) 904 and State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Ved Prakash Sharma 1996 (2) SLR 146. In the alternative it is prayed that even if it is held that the resignation was not accepted before its withdrawal then also the relief of reinstatement with back wages was illegal. Admittedly, the Respondent had worked only for a period of 2 and a half to 3 years and was on probation when she abandoned her job. Hence the impugned award be set aside.

3. Leaned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that until the resignation is accepted the jural relationship of employer and employee continues. Since the resignation was accepted only on 17th July, 1985 before which date the Respondent had withdrawn the resignation i.e. 2nd April, 1985, it cannot be said that the Respondent had resigned from the job. As regards the plea of abandonment, no action could have been taken against the Respondent without conducting an enquiry. No enquiry having been conducted, the termination was illegal. Reliance is placed on Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. 2005 8 SCC 314; Bank of India Vs. Kalidas Haribhau More 2000 (84) FLR 426; Shri Balley Vs. MCD & Ors. MANU/DE/0648/2010; Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. D.S. Bawa & Anr. MANU/DE/1423/2010 and Managing Committee Daisy Dales Sr. Section School and Anr. Vs. Rajinder Singh Malik & Ors. MANU/DE/0819/2011. It is further contended that the scope of interference with the award passed by the Tribunal in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. There being no perversity in the finding or the relief granted, this Court will not set aside the same. Reliance is placed on Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Asha Ram & Anr. 117 (2005) DLT 63.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petition are that Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Warehouse Assistant Gr.II in the pay scale of 260-400 vide order dated 11th June, 1979. She was promoted to Warehouse Assistant Gr.I in the pay scale of 330-560 on 13th September, 1982 and was put on probation for a period of one year vide order dated 9th September, 1982 and was posted at Sonipat in Haryana. Respondent No.2 reported for duty at Central Warehouse Sonipat on 13th September, 1982 and applied for 60 days earned leave with effect from 14th September, 1982 to 12th November, 1982.

Thereafter also Respondent No.2 did not report for duty and remained unauthorizedly absent from 15th November, 1982. No leave application was sent to the Petitioner in this regard. On 23rd March, 198