Case: Srikantha S.M Vs. M/S. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd

2. To appreciate the points raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated.3. The appellant was selected by the Chairman and Managing Director of Bharath Earth Movers Limited (Company for short) respondent herein, and was appointed as Senior Manager in the Department of Security and Vigilance for KGF by an order dated December 11, 1989. He reported for duty on December 29, 1989. By an order dated December 3, 1992, the appellant was transferred to Corporate Office at Bangalore and was relieved on December 04, 1992. The appellant reported at Corporate Office, Bangalore on December 7, 1992. It was his case that he was not assigned any work at Bangalore. The appellant, in the circumstances, got upset and tendered a letter of resignation on January 04, 1993. In the said letter, he stated that he was thankful to the Chief Managing Director for giving him an opportunity to serve the esteemed organization but he wanted to leave the Company. He therefore, requested to treat the letter as his resignation and relieve him from the duties as per Company rules. On the basis of the said letter, the matter was processed and the resignation was accepted by Deputy General Manager (Personnel) on the same day. The appellant was informed that his resignation had been accepted and he would be relieved with immediate effect. It was also stated that the appellant would be entitled for pay towards notice period as per Company rules. By another letter of even date, however, the appellant was informed that his casual leave had been sanctioned from January 05, 1993 to January 13, 1993. January 14, 1993 being a holiday, the appellant would be relieved by the close of working hours on January 15, 1993. It was also stated that the appellant would be entitled for pay towards the balance of notice period as per Company rules.4. It is the case of appellant that from the second letter dated January 4, 1993, it was clear that the resignation submitted by him was to be effective from January 15, 1993 after officer hours. During that period, the appellant changed his mind and withdrew his resignation by addressing a letter on January 8, 1993. In the said letter, he made several complaints and raised grievances and finally stated that if suitable reply would not be given by January 14, 1993, his letter of resignation dated January 4, 1993 should be treated as withdrawn / cancelled. On January 15, 1993 the appellant was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on that day. The service certificate in original alongwith a cheque of Rs. 13,511/- was given to him.5. Since the appellant had withdrawn his resignation on January 8, 1993, the Company could not have accepted it and ought to have continued him in service. But the appellant was not allowed to work after January 15, 1993. He, therefore, approached the High Court of Karnataka by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge observed in the order that since the appellant had submitted his resignation on January 4, 1993 and it was accepted on the same day by the Company, by not continuing him in service, no illegality had been committed by the Company. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. The Division Bench was of the same opinion and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court, the appellant has approached this Court. Notice was issued on August 16, 2002 and after hearing the parties, leave was granted on February 17, 2003.

Court's reasoning:
9. Having given anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of Service Rules and various decisions of this Court to which our attention has been invited, we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in holding that it was not open to the appellant to withdraw the resignation.The Division Bench, by a cryptic order, dismissed the appeal observing that when the resignation was submitted on January 4, 1993 by the appellant and it was accepted on the same day, the fact that he was relieved on January 15, 1993 did not make any difference. To us, both the courts were wrong in taking the view that the appellant was no more in service after January 4, 1993.On the basis of the above decisions, in our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that though the respondent-Company had accepted the resignation of the appellant on January 04, 1993 and was ordered to be relieved on that day, by a subsequent letter, was granted casual leave from January 4, 1993 to January 13, 1993. Moreover, he was informed that he would be relieved after office hours on January 15, 1993. The vinculum juris, therefore, in our considered opinion, continued and the relationship of employer and employee did not come to an end on January 4, 1993. The relieving order and payment of salary also make it abundantly clear that he was continued in service of the Company upto January 15, 1993.28. In affidavit in reply filed by the Company, it was stated that resignation of the appellant was accepted immediately and he was to be relieved on January 4, 1993. It was because of the request of the appellant that he was continued upto January 15, 1993. In the affidavit in rejoinder, the appellant had stated that he reported for duty on January 15, 1993 and also worked on that day. At about 12.00 noon, a letter was issued to him stating therein that he would be relieved at the close of the day. A cheque of Rs. 13,511/- was paid to him at 17.30 hrs. The appellant had asserted that he had not received terminal benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, etc. It is thus proved that upto January 15, 1993, the appellant remained in service. If it is so, in our opinion, as per settled law, the appellant could have withdrawn his resignation before that date. It is an admitted fact that a letter of withdrawal of resignation was submitted by the appellant on January 8, 1993. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Company to give effect to the said letter. By not doing so, the Company has acted contrary to the law and against the decisions of this Court and hence, the action of the Company deserves to be quashed and set aside. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in not granting relief to the appellant. Accordingly, the action of the Company as upheld by the High Court is hereby set aside.29. The next question is, as tobenefits the appellant is entitledto. As he withdrew the resignation and yet he was not allowed to work, he is entitled to all consequential benefits. The learned counsel for the respondent-Company no doubt contended that after January 15, 1993, the appellant had not actually worked and therefore, even if this Court holds that the action of the respondent-Company was not in consonance with law, at the most, the appellant might be entitled to other benefits except the salary which should have been paid to him. According to the counsel, the principle of "no work, no pay" would apply and when the appellant has admittedly not worked, he cannot claim salary for the said period.30. We must frankly admit that we unable to uphold the contention of the respondent-Company. A similar situation had arisen in J.N. Srivastava and a similar argument was advanced by the employer. The Court, however, negatived the argument observing that when the workman was willing to work but the employer did not allow him to work, it would not be open to the employer to deny monetary benefits to the workman who was not permitted to discharge his duties. Accordingly, the benefits were granted to him. In Shambhu Murari Sinha II also, this Court held that since the relationship of employer and employee continued till the employee attained the age of superannuation he would be entitled to "full salary and allowances" of the entire period he was kept out of service. In Balram Gupta, in spite of specific provision precluding the Government servant from withdrawing notice of retirement, this Court granted all consequential benefits to him. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to salary and other benefits.