The Apex court observed that the employee had withdrawn his resignation before acceptance, and only the internal communication of acceptance is not good enough unless it has been officially communicated to the employee.
It came as a reprieve for a railway employee after the Supreme Court reinstated him while terming his resignation that it could not be deemed to be accepted unless acceptance of resignation letter is officially communicated.
The Apex court observed that the employee had withdrawn his resignation before acceptance, and only the internal communication of acceptance is not good enough unless it has been officially communicated to the employee.
In this case, the railway employee has served the Konkan Railway Corporation since 1990. But, after serving for 23 years, he resigned from the organisation on 05.12. 2013. Though his resignation was accepted on 07.04, 2014, no official communication about acceptance was served to the employee. On 26.05, 2014, the employee withdrew his resignation but the Konkan Rail Corporation relieved him on 01.07. 2014.
The Konkan Rail Corporation had accepted the resignation on 07.04.2014 and asked him to report on duty to which he did on 19.05.2014. The officials also asked him about absence.
The lawyers on behalf of the employee argued in top court that the resignation letter didn’t attain eventuality, and his client can’t be relieved. The employee said that he had reported on duty when he was asked by the employer and asked to clarify over his unauthorised absence.
The employee had approached the high court against the employer for relieving him, the court gave him relief but a division bench reversed it and gave a verdict in favour of Konkan Rail.
Later, he moved to the Supreme Court, the latter considered his reasons as he had already claimed that he was in touch with the employer and there was no official communication of acceptance of his resignation.
Source link
