Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case Execution of Will Must Satisfy Legal Mandates; Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored: Chhattisgarh High Court Anticipatory Bail Barred Under SC/ST Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petitions Citing Section 14A Jurisdictional Restrictions Section 143A Imposes a Substantive Obligation and Cannot be Applied Retrospectively: Rajasthan High Court Unregistered Sale Agreements Cannot Be Basis for Specific Performance or Injunction: Madras High Court Upholds First Appellate Court’s Decision” Denial of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: Punjab and Haryana High Court Framing of Charges Requires Prima Facie Evidence, Not Mere Suspicion: Kerala High Court Discharges Bank Customer in Fraud Case Voluntary Confessions of Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Accused Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance Under MMDR Act Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Illegal Mining Case NDPS | Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Delhi High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Functional Disability Reassessed Public Interest and Commercial Morality Must Guide Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings Under Section 466 of the Companies Act: Bombay High Court Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Renders Proclamation Proceedings Null and Void: P&H High Court Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports Doctors Cannot Be Expected to Investigate Victim's Age in the Absence of Prima Facie Doubt: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Bombay HC Grants Bail to Drunk Driving Accused; Orders Public Awareness Campaign as a Condition Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits Lies Squarely on the Plaintiffs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Church Property Dispute Rajasthan High Court Puts Mass Transfer Orders of Panchayat Officials on Hold Physical Disabilities Cannot Be Ignored Based on Employment Continuity: Kerala High Court Awards ₹9.62 Lakh to Teacher Suffering Permanent Disability Local Commissioner Appointment is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Power of the Court: P&H HC Allegations of Fraud Insufficient to Bar Arbitration in Trademark Dispute: Madras High Court Section 138 N.I. Act | Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Karnataka High Court

There could be no question of being permitted to reinstate after acceptance of the resignation.-SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


September 27, 2021

Appellant No.2 before us is the National Textile Corporation (Uttar Pradesh) Limited, Kanpur, a subsidiary of appellant No. 3 that has set up several industrial establishments in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent was working as a Supervisor (Maintenance) in M/s. New Victoria Mills, which is one such establishment set up by appellant no.2 in Kanpur. In order to safeguard the interests of these employees, a Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'MVRS/Scheme') was propounded to facilitate their voluntary retirement. MVRS was proposed pursuant to the recommendations made by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) with the objective of rationalising surplus manpower and reducing the loss of jobs. The Management reserved the right to refuse the MVRS application without assigning any reasons. Respondent made an application under the Amended Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) scheme operated by the NRS, with the sole request that all benefits of service be paid promptly. There was a pre-existing dispute between appellant No.1 and the respondent, relating to deposits to be made in the provident fund account of the respondent. In two letters addressed in this regard dated 29.03.2000 and 23/24.04.2000, the respondent makes a grievance that the amount has not been deposited in his account since 1991. Appellant that his application under the MVRS be kept suspended till the issue is resolved. The respondent requested that his letter dated 12.07.2002 under the MVRS be treated as having been cancelled because he had changed his mind about submitting his resignation, noticing that his resignation letter had still not been accepted.  However, vide letter 14.07.2003 the resignation submitted under the MVRS was accepted intimating that the respondent was to retire from 16.07.2003. Respondent preferred writ petition to Allahabad High Court to Quash of the order dated 14.07.2003; A direction to allow the respondent to join his duties on the post of Supervisor (Maintenance) and pay him all his emoluments as entitled; To pay him his back-wages since 16.07.2003 and permit him to work on the post till the age of his superannuation when he would be entitled to all his retiral benefits and same was allowed. Aggrieved appellants file appeal.SC examined the principles governing the case of voluntary retirement – respondent did not challenge the order by which his resignation was accepted under MVRS. Once such a resignation was accepted, and not even assailed, there could be no question of the respondent being permitted to resign post acceptance of the resignation. merely delayed the relieving of the respondent and did not defer the acceptance of the resignation. Once the resignation letter had been accepted, the chapter was over. Appeal Allowed. 

M/s. NEW VICTORIA MILLS & ORS. 

Versus 

SHRIKANT ARYA

View Judgement

Similar News