Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line

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

Latest Legal News