Possession and Part Performance: Stamp Duty Compliance Is Non-Negotiable, Says Delhi High Court Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner No Profits, No Deduction — Section 33AC Must Precede 80-I Calculation in Shipping Tax Disputes: Bombay High Court Equity and Merit Must Coexist: Kerala High Court Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Forest Department Employees Lawyers Have No Right to Strike: Madras High Court in Contempt Case Encroachment is like committing a 'dacoity' against public resources: Delhi High Court. High Court Rejects Plea of Kindergarten School Against ESI Contribution Assessment Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Citing 'Humanitarian Consideration' After Accused Marries Victim Procedural Delays Do Not Justify Condonation of Delay," Rules Delhi Consumer Commission in National Insurance Case Elements of Section 300 IPC Are Not Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Murder Conviction in 1987 Beating Case Registrar Cannot Be a Judge of His Own Cause: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Amendments MP High Court Upholds Prosecution for Forged Patta: 'Accountability in Public Office is Non-Negotiable Approval Must Be Granted for Altruistic Kidney Donations," Rules Madras High Court Grave Illegality in Appellate Remand: High Court of Rajasthan Orders Reassessment on Merits Commissioner Lacked Authority for Retrospective Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Educational Trusts' Registrations Intent is Crucial in Violent Crimes: Single Blow with Axe Does Not Imply Attempt to Murder," Rules Madhya Pradesh 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