Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑54 of 1976, heard on 8th November 1976.

----S. 25‑A‑Resignation, acceptance‑Worker submitting his resigna tion with a request for immediate acceptance and waiver of one month's notice but told to continue work and resignation accepted some days later‑Contention that worker's resignation was not accepted and he was required to continue to remain in employment permanently‑Worker neither withdrawing his resignation nor asking Management to give any thing in writing in respect of refusal of acceptance of resignation, contention, held, not acceptable‑Worker having been charge‑sheeted, resignation appearing to have been tendered to avoid inquiry and further action against him‑Resignation once accepted, grievance application also not maintainable.

Ishar Ahmed for Appellant.

Samiullah Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th November 1976.

This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application made under section 25‑A, I. R. O:

2. The appellant was in the permanent employment of the respondent. On 27th February, 1975 he submitted his resignation with a request for immediate acceptance and waiver of one month's notice. He was, however, told to continue to work. He, therefore, continued till 12th July, 1975 when his resignation was said to have been accepted. When on 14th July, 1975 he went to the office as usual, he was told that his resignation had already been accepted and he could not be allowed to work. After service of the grievance notice the Labour Court was approached.

3. Before the Labour Court, the appellant raised a contention that he was given to understand that the Management had refused to accept the resignation and he was asked to work permanently as usual, and therefore, the subsequent acceptance of the resignation was invalid and could not be given any effect. So according to him, he continued to remain service.

4. The Labour Court on the assessment of the evidence did not accept the contention of the appellant. It was held that the acceptance of the resignation was kept pending till 12th July, 1975 and it was within discretion of the Management to accept the resignation immediately or after sometime according to the nature of the work and the requirements. It was not true that the Management had told the appellant that his resignation was not accepted. It was further held by the Labour Court that an application under sec tion 25‑A against the acceptance of resignation could not be maintained as this section was applicable only in case of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay off, lock‑out or punishment.

5. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. On the perusal of the record and proceeding and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order by the Labour Court. The contention of the appellant that he was given to understand that his resignation was not accepted and he was required to continue to remain in the employment permanently as usual cannot be accepted. Neither he had withdrawn his resignation nor he had asked the Management to give anything in writing in respect of the refusal of the acceptance of the resignation. It appears that the appellant agreed to continue to work temporarily till the resignation was accepted. Since he was anxious to resign there was no reason for him to continue to remain in the employment permanently when no extra benefit or concession was offered to him. The record shows that the appellant had also been charge‑sheeted on certain grounds and it appears that in order to avoid the inquiry and any action by the Management he decided to resign. I also agree with the Labour Court that since resignation was accepted the grievance application under section 25‑A was not maintainable.

6. In result the appeal is dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.