IMPORTANT POINT
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for private employment disputes, even if the employer performs public functions.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. The petitioner, Reddy Veerraju Chowdary, has applied for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider for acceptance his letter of resignation from service and issue him with a no-objection certificate, relieving letter, and, doing a final settlement of his service dues, including arrears of salary and gratuity, within such period of time that this Court may determine.

2. The petitioner is an employee of a private limited company, called the Gayatri Projects Limited. The Company aforesaid is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Gayatri Projects Limited (for short, 'the Company') was incorporated on 15.9.1989. The Company has its registered office at T.R.S. Tower, B-1 6-3-1090, Raj Bhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana. The Company was incorporated with the object of carrying out construction of Public Roads, State Highways and National Highways, undertaking these projects for Governments, that is to say, the State Governments and the Government of India. The Company would undertake these projects on contracts awarded.

3. Eschewing unnecessary detail, suffice it to say that the petitioner was selected and appointed with the Company on the post of an Account Assistant for their project site, UP-4, located at Jhansi vide letter of appointment dated 2.7.2005. According to the petitioner, he was a sincere and devoted employee. He was promoted to the position of an Associate General Manager (Accounts and Finance) and posted at the Regional Office of the Company, located at Varanasi, since 21.9.2015. The petitioner was associated with the construction of the National Highway-56 and 233 in Varanasi, as an employee of the Company. For whatever reason, the Company became insolvent and an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, 'the Code of 2016'), being CP (IB) No. 308/07/HDB/2022 was instituted against the Company before the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

4. The Tribunal passed an order dated 15.11.2022, admitting the aforesaid application and directing the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Tribunal further ordered the appointment of respondent No. 1, Mr. Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi as the Interim Resolution Professional for the Company. He will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Interim Resolution Professional'. The Interim Resolution Professional issued a public announcement, which was published in newspapers under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of India, notifying the public that the Company had been ordered by the National Company Law Tribunal for a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 15.11.2022. The creditors were, therefore, called upon to submit their claims with proof on or before 1.12.2022 to the Interim Resolution Professional. The petitioner was continuously paid salary until the month of April, 2023. The petitioner, however, dissatisfied with the conduct of the Senior Vice-President (Projects) of the Company, submitted his resignation via email 13.5.2023, which was transmitted to the correct email address of the second respondent as well as the Human Resource Manager, Regional Office, Varanasi. The petitioner requested for acceptance of his resignation after the expiry of one month's advance notice.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that although a month's notice period came to end on 12.6.2023, following which he handed over charge to the concerned Authority on 14.6.2023, the Company failed to issue a relieving certificate, a no-dues certificate, payment of the petitioner's gratuity and arrears of salary for the period May 1st to June 14th, 2023. A number of requests were sent to the Company via different emails to relieve the petitioner, etc.

6. It is the petitioner's case that despite repeated demand, he is faced with inaction on respondents' part, where they have failed to pay heed to his claim for being relieved in furtherance of the resignation and h