Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Greevas Job Panakkal, S/o. (Late) Varghese Job Panakkal – Petitioner
Versus
Traco Cable Company Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.5132 and 33223 of 2025
Decided On : 13-02-2026
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The employer has a legal obligation to accept an employee's resignation unless there are specific contractual conditions that justify refusal. Refusing resignation without valid reasons constitutes unlawful retention of services and may be viewed as bonded labor, which violates fundamental rights under the Constitution (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioner, serving as Company Secretary since 2012, faced salary defaults from October 2022 onwards and submitted a resignation in March 2024. The employer rejected this resignation, citing operational needs and the company's financial difficulties (!) (!) .
The petitioner has personal and family reasons for resignation, including caring for his ailing mother, which the court recognizes as valid grounds for resignation (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that, absent any contractual violations or procedural lapses, an employer cannot lawfully refuse to accept a resignation. The employer's refusal in this case was deemed unlawful (!) (!) .
The employer's attempt to retain the petitioner against his will, especially given the financial distress of the company, is considered a violation of the employee's rights and may amount to bonded labor, which is prohibited (!) .
The court directed the employer to accept the petitioner’s resignation and to relieve him within two months, along with the payment of all due arrears, benefits, and terminal dues (!) .
The court found the employer's actions, including issuing notices and disciplinary threats after the resignation, to be unjustified and set aside the relevant notices and memos (!) (!) .
The case underscores that financial hardship or emergency cannot justify forcing an employee to continue employment against their will, especially in statutory positions such as Company Secretary (!) (!) .
These points reflect the court's stance on the employee's right to resign, the employer's obligations, and the importance of respecting fundamental rights and contractual procedures.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. resignation procedure and employee's duty (Para 4) |
| 2. disciplinary actions and employer's responsibilities (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 3. company's financial state and refusal of resignation (Para 9 , 14) |
| 4. court's directive to accept resignation (Para 12 , 20) |
| 5. rights of an employee to resign (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The Company Secretary of the 1st respondent-Traco Cable Company Limited has filed these writ petitions. The 1st respondent-Company is a State Public Sector Undertaking.
2. The petitioner joined the 1st respondent-Company as Company Secretary on 07.05.2012. The petitioner states that the Company started default in payment of salary from October, 2022 onwards. For a long period, salary was not paid. Therefore, the petitioner had no other go than to resign from the job. He submitted resignation on 18.03.2024 and requested to relieve him from service.
3. To the surprise of the petitioner, he received Ext.P2 note issued by the 2nd respondent-Managing Director stating that his case was placed before the 322ndBoard meeting and the Board has rejected his resignation stating that it is unfair for the petitioner to leave the Organisation in its present critical financial position without proper substitute. The petitioner was directed to resume duties immediately.
4. The petitioner states that his father passed away on 06.06.2020 leaving his aged mother who had suffered a stroke in the year 2018. She is suffering from neuro and psychiatric issues and she is under treatment for the past many years. The petitioner has to provide treatment to his mother and take care of her necessities.
5. The petitioner therefore approached the Management and requested to accept his resignation. The petitioner was again issued with Ext.P5 memo dated 25.04.2024 which asked him to give explanation in writing within 48 hours as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply and requested again to relieve him so that he can go in search of better opportunities and take care of his ailing mother.
6. The petitioner was again served with Ext.P7 memo dated 04.10.2024 directing him to report for duty. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No.5132/2025 seeking to quash Ext.P4 note and Exts.P5 and P7 memos and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to accept Ext.P2 resignation.
7. While W.P.(C) No.5132/2025 was pending, the respondent-Company issued Ext.P9 memo dated 17.03.2025 to the petitioner requiring him to show-cause as to why he has unauthorisedly retained the laptop of the Company. The petitioner gave Ext.P10 reply. The petitioner states that Ext.P9 memo issued subsequent to the filing of W.P.(C) No.5132/2025 is clearly an after thought and is an attempt to interfere with the due course of justice. Ext.P9 memo is vague, contends the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No.33223/2025 seeking to quash Ext.P9 memo.
8. The respondents filed a statement in W.P.(C) No.5132/2025. The respondents stated that the Company has been struggling financially since October, 2022. A comprehensive revival plan has been proposed to clear liabilities. The Managing Director received the petitioner's resignation on 18.03.2024.
9. The Board meeting held on 26.03.2024 noted that the petitioner played a pivotal role and his role as a key advisor to the Managing Director is unavoidable. Given the financial crunch of the Company, the petitioner's presence is deemed essential to the Company. The petitioner is uniquely positioned to address queries and concerns raised within the Department. No other Company Secretary qualified personnel is available. Therefore, the Board decided to reject the petitioner’s resignation.
10. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.33223/2025, respondents 1 and 2 stated that the petitioner was repeatedly requested to report back duty. The petitioner was required to surrender his Company issued laptop and SIM Card. The petitioner emptied t
An employer must accept an employee's resignation unless there are specific contractual stipulations justifying refusal; violating this right constitutes bonded labor under Article 23 of the Constitu....
A resignation must be unconditional and comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before its acceptance, and actions implying continued service must be recognized, entitling the employee to benefits.
A resignation from government service is effective only upon acceptance by the appointing authority, and the employer has the right to reject it if conditions for resignation are not met.
An employee has the right to resign even after disciplinary proceedings if no further action is pending.
The acceptance of resignation was invalid due to non-timely action by the department and discriminatory practices in handling similar cases.
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 workma....
An employee's resignation is effective upon acceptance by the employer, and withdrawal must occur before acceptance; acceptance of benefits indicates cessation of employment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
