A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellant Vijay Shankar against the impugned order passed by learned single Judge dismissing, his writ petition and affirming the order passed by the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (in short the Tribunal) dated August 26, 1998. The appellant was appointed on the post of "auto helper Category-II" in the year 1984. It is admitted by the parties that the petitioner submitted his resignation vide letter dated september 10, 1991 (Annexurea/1 ). On going through the resignation letter, it is found that a prayer to accept it immediately was made. According to appellant he did submit the application to withdraw the resignation vide annexure A-2 on the same day i. e. September 10, 1991. On going through the withdrawal letter, it is gathered that in a heat of passion, he did submit an application of resignation. However on the same day, he requested not to accept the resignation, by submitting application of withdrawal. There is a note at the bottom of Annexure A-2 that it was received on September 11, 1991. The contention of appellant before the Tribunal as well as before the writ Court, was that since before the acceptance of the resignation letter, he withdrew the resignation on (sic) September 10, 1991, therefore the resignation could not have been accepted on September 11, 1991.

( 2 ) THE other contention which was raised on behalf of appellant before the Tribunal as well as before the writ Court was that in view of clause 24. 3 of the Standing Orders, no workman is permitted to leave the service of the employer unless notice in writing is given of one month in the case of monthly paid workman and two weeks in the case of weekly paid workman. The attention was also invited to the proviso to clause 24. 3 which empowers the employer to relax this condition but subject to the payment of cash in lieu of such notice. It was further proponed before the writ Court as well as before the Tribunal that the certificate issued by Superintendent of respondent certifying that petitioner did work on september 10, 1991 as well as on September 11, 1991 and therefore, if the resignation was accepted on September 10, 1991, how appellant was allowed to work on September 11, 1991 and therefore it cannot be said that the resignation was accepted on September 10, 1991.

( 3 ) COMBATING the aforesaid submissions, on behalf of respondents, a return was submitted in the writ Court in which it was pleaded that appellant was working as a labourer and he had submitted his resignation on account of his personal difficulties with a request for its immediate acceptance. The resignation of the appellant was accepted by respondent on September 10, 1991 and therefore, the request of withdrawal of resignation which was made on the next day i. e. September 11, 1991 was without any sanguinity. It was submitted in the writ Court on behalf of respondent that clause 32. 2 of the standing Orders gives right to the employer to accept the resignation with immediate effect. According to case of respondents since resignation was accepted on September 10, 1991, therefore, the appellant had no case and therefore he is not entitled for any relief.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal as well as the writ Court did find the merit in the contentions raised by respondent. The writ Court did not accept the contention of appellant and held that clause 24. 3 of the Standing Orders is not applicable in his case and on the other hand clause 32. 1 is applicable. The case of Punjab National Bank v. P. K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 : 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175 : 1989-I-LLJ- 368 and Ravinder singh v. State of M. P. and others 1995 (2) SLR 424, were not found to be applicable by learned single Judge. The learned single judge by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U. P and others AIR 1990 SC 1808 : 1990 (4) SCC 27 : 1991-I-LLJ-39 held tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document