Acceptance Of Resignation Results In Termination Of Employment, Non-Communication Of Acceptance To Employee Immaterial: Supreme Court

Taking note of prevalent service jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on Thursday (April 25) held that the employment is deemed to be terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority.

The Bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar observed that before the withdrawal of the resignation letter by the employee, if the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority, then the non-communication of the acceptance of the resignation to the employee would not render the termination ineffective.

The Judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar relied on the Judgment of North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar to hold that when the Act and Rules don't provide any guidelines for acceptance of the resignation upon the management then the position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in North Zone would be squarely applied to the facts of the case.

In the North Zone case, the Supreme Court held that resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated as long as rules or guidelines governing the resignation do not mandate such acceptance of resignation is to be communicated.

Background

The present case relates to Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act and Rules).

The court was dealing with the case where the teacher was terminated from employment after it sent the resignation letter to the management. However, the appellant/teacher contended that he had withdrawn the resignation letter soon after sending the resignation letter, therefore his employment was wrongly terminated by the school committee.

The appellant took a plea that he had not received any formal communication from respondents of the acceptance of his resignation, therefore his termination should be set aside.

Further, the appellant contended that the rules framed under the MEPS Act were not followed as the resignation letter was not accepted by the management but by the school committee which lacks the power to accept the resignation letter.

Supreme Court's Observation

Rejecting such contention, the court held that non-communication of acceptance of the resignation letter by the respondent wouldn't be a ground to challenge the termination of employment as the resignation of the employee is deemed to be accepted when it is accepted by the school committee.

While noting that the MEPS Act does not lay down any strict guidelines about how the resignation letter be accepted, thus the court opined that in the absence of procedural guidelines detailing the mode and mechanism in Act and Rule, the law laid down by the court in North Zone case would hold the field.

Thus, the court upheld the acceptance of the resignation by the school committee.

“Further, it is observed that MEPS Rule 40 has not prescribed any requirement or obligation to be fulfilled by the management relating to communication of acceptance of resignation to the employee, nor the Rule would indicate that acceptance of resignation and consequent termination of services of the employee would be improper if such acceptance of resignation is not communicated to the employee. In light of the intent and interpretation of the relevant Section 7 of MEPS and Rule 40 of the Rules, we conclude that the High Court was right in holding that mere noncommunication of acceptance of resignation to the employee would not render the termination invalid.”, the court observed.

Based on the above premise, the appeal preferred by the teacher was dismissed and the decision of the High Court was upheld.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR Mr. Abhinav Panase, Adv. Mr. Samarth Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Rekha Giri, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Murarka, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Yatin M.Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.

Case Title: SHRIRAM MANOHAR BANDE VERSUS UKTRANTI MANDAL & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 329

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment