1. Resignation withdrawn before acceptance — Petition to direct consideration of representation. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
Dhanya V.S – Appellant
Versus
District Labour Officer – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16880 OF 2026
Important Points
The Court directed a statutory authority to finalize pending proceedings regarding the withdrawal of a resignation, leaving the determination of maintainability and the validity of the withdrawal to be decided by that authority in accordance with law.
Subject
Employment Law - Resignation and Termination
Headnote
(A) Employment Law - Resignation and Withdrawal - Dispute regarding the validity of withdrawing a resignation after the employer claims it has already been accepted. (Para 2, 3)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Direction to Statutory Authority - When a dispute is already pending before a competent authority, the Court may direct the said authority to finalize the proceedings within a specified timeframe. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the petitioner's request to withdraw her resignation should be considered and whether the pending proceedings before the Deputy Chief Commissioner (Central) should be finalized.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to finalize proceedings within two months.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Direction to Statutory Authority - When a dispute is already pending before a competent authority, the Court may direct the said authority to finalize the proceedings within a specified timeframe. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the petitioner's request to withdraw her resignation should be considered and whether the pending proceedings before the Deputy Chief Commissioner (Central) should be finalized.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to finalize proceedings within two months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
- maintainability (Para 3)
- disposal without merits
- directions for expeditious hearing
- labour and employment
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Najah Ebrahim V.P.
For the Respondents: Latha Anand, Gowri Menon
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Najah Ebrahim V.P.
For the Respondents: Latha Anand, Gowri Menon
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends resignation was conditional and revocable; bank argues it was accepted before withdrawal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Court notes proceedings pending before additional 4th respondent regarding the petitioner's complaint. (Para 4 )
4. Can a resignation be withdrawn after it has been accepted?
The court did not decide this issue; it referred the matter to the additional 4th respondent for decision on maintainability and merits. (Para 4 )
5. Is a writ petition maintainable against a private scheduled bank in an employment matter?
The court did not decide maintainability; it left the issue for the additional 4th respondent to determine. (Para 3 )
6. Is an Assistant Manager a 'workman' for purposes of proceedings before the labour authority?
The bank raised this objection, but the court did not decide it, leaving it for the additional 4th respondent. (Para 4 )
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
W.P.(C) No.16880 of 2026 .................................................................Dated this the 24th day of September, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
2. It is contended that the petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Manager, has submitted her resignation on 19.02.2026 based on the instructions/assurance of the 3rd respondent that the said resignation is a temporary administrative requirement and that the resignation would be revoked upon her submitting a request. Petitioner withdrew her resignation on 16.04.2026 and since no action was taken on the same, submitted Ext.P1 communication on 23.04.2026, requesting to accept her withdrawal from resignation. Despite multiple email communications, no action has been taken in this regard. Petitioner would submit that going by Ext.P3 communication dated 06.05.2026, the bank itself has stated that revocation of her resignation was purely at the discretion of the supervisor and that her employee status would be changed from ‘SNP’ to ‘Active’ once the revocation is accepted in system. Petitioner also relies on the guidelines as reflected in the communications produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the bank, especially Exts.R2(f) to R2(l), wherein there is a condition that the resignation if withdrawn after 25th of the month, the salary release shall be put on hold till next payroll and submits that the said condition indicates that the resignation could be withdrawn by the employee before it is accepted.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, a specific contention is raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that the 2nd respondent is a private scheduled bank and relying on Ext.R2(f) communication dated 23.02.2026, the resignation has already been accepted subject to other formalities to be complied. So, based on the same, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank that the resignation has been accepted as early as on 23.02.2026, whereas the withdrawal was only on 16.04.2026 and therefore, after the resignation has been accepted, the same cannot be withdrawn.
4. Petitioner would submit that complaining of the illegality committed by the respondents, she has already approached the additional 4th respondent and proceedings are pending before the said authority. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent submits that it is true that proceedings are pending consideration before the said authority and an appropriate decision on the said request submitted by the petitioner will be taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent bank. To which the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that proceedings before the additional 4th respondent is not maintainable since the petitioner is not a workman.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the additional 4th respondent to finalise the proceedings stated to be submitted by the petitioner and pending consideration before the said authority, without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The question regarding maintainability, etc. could be raised by the respondent bank before the additional 4th respondent, who shall take an appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law.
