Resignation Of Employee Can't Be Accepted Retrospectively If It Is Withdrawn Before Acceptance: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court made it clear that resignation of an employee cannot be accepted retrospectively if the resignation is withdrawn before the acceptance.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "Once, a resignation which is sought to be accepted had already been withdrawn by the petitioner, there was no jurisdiction with the authority concerned to accept the same with retrospective effect so as to over come the withdrawal of the resignation by the employee concerned."

The Court was hearing a plea challenging the order passed on September 02, 1994 by which, the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of resignation and joining back was rejected as well as to the order dated September 06, 1994 vide which the resignation of the petitioner was accepted by the authority with retrospective effect despite the fact that the resignation had already been withdrawn by the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order.

B.B Gupta joined the services as an Apprentice Accountant in 1973 and was later promoted to Senior Accountant. While working on the post of Senior Accountant, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 01 November 1993 by giving one month's notice so as to give effect to the said resignation starting from 01 December 1993.

The respondent did not accept the resignation and requested the petitioner to return back the house building loan first, which was outstanding along with interest against the petitioner. Gupta's resignation was kept in limbo till the petitioner decided to withdraw the said resignation on 08 August 1994.

After withdrawing the resignation, the petitioner submitted that he should be allowed to join back and continue in service but respondents vide order dated 06 September 1994 accepted the resignation of the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e. from 30 November 1993.

Gupta challenged the order in the Labour Court, alleging that the acceptance of his resignation by the respondent, after it had already been withdrawn by him, was outside the jurisdiction of the competent authority. He argued that, as a result, he should be treated as being in service for all intents and purposes.

The Labour Court found that Gupta, who was discharging the duties of the post of Manager Grade-B is not covered under the definition of Workman and the said reference qua the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner by the respondent was declined to be accepted.

After examining the submissions, the Court considered that, "when the resignation of an employee is deemed to be accepted and whether there is any deeming fiction with regard to the acceptance of the resignation or the same has to be accepted by a specific order so as to terminate the master and servant relationship."

The judge observed that, as per the settled principle of law, the resignation will only come into effect in case, the same is accepted by the competent authority by passing a specific order. There is no deeming fiction of the acceptance of the resignation once given by an employee.

Justice Sethi highlighted that in the present case, the respondent has passed an order by deeming fiction that the resignation submitted by the petitioner stands accepted w.e.f. 30 November 1993. "There is no procedure of the deemed acceptance of resignation and that too with retrospective effect," added the Court.

Perusing the service rules (HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988, Rule 14) the Court noted that, "till the resignation is accepted by the competent authority, the master and servant relationship does not come to an end and in the present case, acceptance of resignation dated 01.11.1993 by the respondent No.2 was only done on 06.09.1994 hence, the position is to be seen as on 06.09.1994 as to whether the competent authority had the jurisdiction to accept the resignation or not."

The Court said that It is a settled principle of law that resignation can be withdrawn by the employee concerned prior to the date the same is accepted. In the present case, though the resignation was given by the petitioner with one month's notice but it is a conceded factual position that same was not accepted by the competent authority by exercising power under the service rules.

It pointed that before the authority concerned exercised its jurisdiction to accept the resignation of the petitioner on 06 September 1994, the same had already been withdrawn by the petitioner by giving letter dated 08 August 1994.

The Court opined that once, a resignation which is sought to be accepted had already been withdrawn by the petitioner, there was no jurisdiction with the authority concerned to accept the same with retrospective effect so as to over come the withdrawal of the resignation by the employee concerned.

Consequently, the Court held that acceptance of the resignation with retrospective effect by the respondent is without jurisdiction and without noticing the correct fact as the withdrawal of the resignation was very much to the knowledge of the respondent as on 06 September 1994.

Hence, it concluded that accepting of resignation retrospectively so as to terminate the master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent is beyond jurisdiction of the authority.

While setting aside the impugned order, the Court noted Gupta had had worked in another institution for some duration and he will be satisfied in case 50% back wages are given.

In the light of the above, the Court directed that Gupta will be deemed to be in service for all intent and purposes till he attained the age of superannuation and he will be given all the consequential benefits.

The back wages, for which the petitioner became entitled for, upon reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, will be limited to only 50%. The Court also held that the petitioner is entitled for the retiral benefits for which he became entitled after his retirement, the same will also be given to the petitioner along with arrears.

Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for respondent No.2

Title: B.B. Gupta v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and another

 Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 125

Click here to read/download the order