A resignation is effective upon acceptance, even without communication, as per applicable guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Krutarth Pandya waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 01.10.2021 passed by the learned Labour Court, Gandhidham, in Reference No. 158 of 2017, whereby the reference filed by the present petitioner was rejected and the contention regarding forceful resignation was unaccepted.

3. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was appointed as a Senior Engineer (Quality Control) on a probation basis on 25.12.2006, and was subsequently made permanent on 25.09.2017. The petitioner was deputed at the Special Economic Zone in Kandla and was responsible for checking the quality of material supplied to the respondent company. The petitioner had been serving continuously since 2006. However, on 25.04.2017, the Head of the Department, Mr. P.B. Patil, allegedly called the petitioner and threatened him with the initiation of criminal and civil proceedings for cheating and fraud, specifically for allegedly claiming undue travel allowance by submitting fake hotel bills. Due to the coercion and threats issued by Mr. Patil, the petitioner was allegedly compelled to tender his resignation on 26.04.2017. Although the acceptance of the said resignation was never communicated to the petitioner, and his legal dues were paid only after the issuance of a demand notice, the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference. This dismissal is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prateek Bhatia for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Krutarth Pandya for the respondent.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatia submits that the petitioner was forced to sign the resignation letter dated 25.04.2017. The resignation was typed, and under the threat of civil and criminal proceedings, the petitioner was compelled to sign it. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatia further submits that, as per the terms of the appointment, the petitioner was required to serve a three-month notice period. Alternatively, if the company wished to relieve the employee before the expiry of the notice period, such decision was required to be communicated in writing. It is submitted that although the resignation was allegedly tendered on 25.04.2017, the petitioner withdrew the same through a demand notice dated 20.05.2017. Despite this, the petitioner was relieved from service on 26.05.2017. Since the resignation had already been withdrawn prior to the date of relieving, it is submitted that the resignation ought to have been treated as non-existent, and the act of relieving the petitioner constitutes illegal termination. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatia further submits that the petitioner’s legal dues were admittedly paid only after the issuance of the demand notice. Moreover, the endorsement made on the resignation letter by the employer merely states that the petitioner “may be relieved as requested and in accordance with the guidelines of the company.” It is further submitted that as per the guidelines stated in the appointment order, either a written communication is mandatory or a three- month notice is required to be issued. In the absence of compliance with these conditions, it is contended that the learned Labour Court erred in not accepting the petitioner’s case regarding the alleged forceful resignation and its timely withdrawal. Learned advocate Mr.Bhatia also submits that the email dated 06.02.2017, annexed with the relieving letter and the service certificate, was never received by the petitioner on the date he was alleged to have retired. I