A resignation accepted unconditionally cannot be withdrawn unilaterally, and a suit for declaration regarding continuation in service is not maintainable if the employee is not classified as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral)

With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties two connected regular second appeals arising from the same suit shall stand disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The defendant has filed the present appeal to challenge the correctness of two separate judgments filed by the First Appellate Court in two cross-appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. After having carefully examined the judgments of the Courts below and the requisitioned trial Court record, this Court is of the opinion that the following two issues need adjudication:-

i. Whether an employee whose resignation is submitted, on acceptance or conveyance of his resignation, in absence of service rules or statutory provisions governing the service conditions of employee in the non-government organization/business house, enforce its subsequent withdrawal through Court?

ii. Whether a civil suit for declaration filed by an employee who is not covered under the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding his continuation in service in a non-government organization/company, maintainable?

4. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

5. The plaintiff was appointed as a field coordinator in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. On 09.04.1998, he was promoted as area Sales Manager and thereafter, promoted as a Zonal Manager on 04.05.2001. The respondent (plaintiff before the trial Court) submitted his resignation on 05.09.2003, which was accepted on 01.10.2003. He was asked to hand over the company's properties, which were in his possession and also to obtain the 'No Dues Certificate' from all the stockists. The resignation as well as its acceptance, which was conveyed to the respondent reads as under:-

"Resignation:

Due to unavoidable personal reasons it is not possible for me to continue my service with the company. I, therefore, tender my resignation from the company's services w.e.f. 05th Sept. 2003. Treat the same as three month notice period"

"Acceptance of Resignation:

With reference to your resignation, we wish to inform you that your resignation has been accepted and you will be relieved from your duties with effect from the closing hours of 04.12.2003 to your handing over the company's properties in your possession to your superior/branch.

You are advised to return all company's properties in your possession to your superior and also obtain 'No Duess Certificate' from all the stockists to enable us to settle your full and final account.

Your are advised to contact your branch office to enable them to settle your account in accordance with the terms and conditions of your employment. Please also complete the enclosed feedback from & send back to us at the earliest."

6. The respondent on 07.11.2003, requested the company to give him 45 days time for obtaining the 'No Dues Certificate' as he requires such time to cover whole of India for collecting the certificates. On 14.11.2003, the plaintiff again requested for the same. He also requested the company to pay him arrears of salary and tour expenses. He also demanded advances so that he could visit and collect the 'No Dues Certificate' from the stockists, who are spread over in 2/3rd of the country. In the letter dated 07.11.2003, as well as 14.11.2003, the plaintiff stated that he would remain on the company's payroll till collection of 'No Dues Certificate's. On 25.11.2003, the respondent requested the office to permit him to withdraw resignation, and his withdrawal was not accepted or replied to by the company. The plaintiff claims that he kept attending the work of the company, however, he was not paid. On 21.01.2005, the appellant sent a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement of the accounts.

7. Though, the plaintiff has claimed that he wrote a letter on 02.11.2003, however, the same has not been produced. The first letter, which has been p