Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana 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

Latest Legal News