Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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