In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that an employee can withdraw their resignation before it is formally accepted by the employer. This decision came in the case of S.D. Manohara vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2024, arising out of SLP (C) No. 15788 of 2021), where the Court quashed a High Court order that upheld the refusal of the employer to accept the withdrawal of resignation. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Background of the Case
The appellant, S.D. Manohara, had been in service with the Konkan Railway Corporation Limited since 1990. On December 5, 2013, Manohara submitted a resignation letter, requesting it to take effect after one month. The controversy centered around whether the resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance by the employer.
The employer, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, argued that they had accepted the resignation on April 15, 2014, with effect from April 7, 2014. According to them, Manohara’s request to withdraw the resignation on May 26, 2014, came too late, and thus they rejected the request on June 23, 2014, and relieved him from service on July 1, 2014.
Legal Issues Involved
The core issue before the Court was whether the resignation could be withdrawn by the employee before its acceptance by the employer. The appellant argued that he had continued to work after the date on which the resignation was supposedly accepted and had not been informed of the acceptance. He also cited several communications, including a letter from his wife and a letter from the employer asking him to report for duty, to support his claim that the resignation had not been finalized.
The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of his resignation withdrawal in the High Court of Karnataka. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, ordering his reinstatement with all benefits. However, this decision was overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court meticulously examined whether the resignation was withdrawn before its acceptance. The Court emphasized that the established principle of law allows an employee to withdraw a resignation letter before it is formally accepted by the employer. Citing precedents such as Suman Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan and Air India Express Limited v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, the Court reiterated that the critical factor is whether the employer had communicated the acceptance of the resignation to the employee before the withdrawal.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, writing for the bench, observed:
“The letter dated 15.04.2014, purportedly accepting the resignation with effect from 07.04.2014, was an internal communication and there is no clear evidence that it was ever served on the appellant. The appellant continued to be in service and was in active communication with the respondent.”
The Court further noted:
“There was no finality to the resignation dated 05.12.2013. The respondent’s conduct, including requesting the appellant to report to duty and accepting a leave application, indicates that the resignation was not treated as final.”
The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in relying on the internal communication dated April 15, 2014, which was not formally communicated to the appellant. It held that the appellant had validly withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance and should be reinstated.
Decision and Directions of the Court
The Court set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court and directed the reinstatement of the appellant within 30 days. The appellant is entitled to receive 50% of the salary for the period he was considered relieved from service (from July 1, 2014, to the date of reinstatement). The Court also directed that this period should count for pensionary benefits.
Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Parties and Legal Representation
– Appellant: S.D. Manohara
– Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, assisted by Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria (Advocate-on-Record) and Mr. Samarth Kashyap.
– Respondents: Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Others
– Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Atul Yeshwant Chitale, assisted by Mr. Madhav Atul Chitale, Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale (Advocate-on-Record), and Mr. Sauryapratapsinh Barhat.
