Supreme Court settles dispute on withdrawal of resignation in service matter: S.D. Manohara vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited (2024) INSC 693 (13 September 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 693
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can an employee withdraw their resignation before it is accepted by the employer? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service dispute involving an employee of the Konkan Railway Corporation. The core issue revolved around whether the employee, S.D. Manohara, had successfully withdrawn his resignation before the employer formally accepted it. The bench, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

S.D. Manohara had been working with the Konkan Railway Corporation since 1990. After 13 years of service, on 05 December 2013, he submitted his resignation, stating that it should be considered effective after one month. The dispute arose when the employee claimed he had withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted, while the employer argued that the resignation had been accepted before the withdrawal request was made. The employee continued to work, and there were communications between him and the employer, leading to a disagreement about the effective date of the resignation and its withdrawal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The employee, S.D. Manohara, initially filed a Writ Petition (No. 50662/2014) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the rejection of his withdrawal of resignation. The Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the reinstatement of the employee with all benefits. The employer, Konkan Railway Corporation, then filed a Writ Appeal (No. 3982 of 2019) before the Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s decision, leading to the employee’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal principle at play is the established principle that a resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance. The Supreme Court cited several cases to support this principle, including:

• Suman v. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 161
• Air India Express Limited v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129
• Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 314
• Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228
• Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301

These cases establish the legal position that an employee has the right to withdraw their resignation before it is formally accepted by the employer. The court’s analysis focused on whether the employer had effectively accepted the resignation before the employee attempted to withdraw it.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the letter dated 15.04.2014, which the respondent claimed accepted the resignation, was never issued to him.
• It was contended that the letter dated 15.04.2014 was an internal communication and not a formal acceptance of the resignation. It was not marked to the appellant and did not refer to his resignation letter dated 05.12.2013.
• The appellant continued to work and reported on 19.05.2014, indicating that the resignation was not yet effective.
• The appellant relied on the letter dated 10.05.2014 issued by the respondent, directing him to report to duty, which was after the alleged acceptance date of 07.04.2014.
• The appellant also relied on letters from his wife dated 17.04.2014 and 20.05.2014, requesting the respondent not to accept his resignation.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014, with effect from 07.04.2014.
• The respondent contended that the appellant’s request to withdraw his resignation on 26.05.2014 was after the acceptance date, and therefore, the withdrawal request was rejected.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the employee, S.D. Manohara, had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance by the employer, Konkan Railway Corporation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the principle that a resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance, citing the following cases: Suman v. Jain v. Marwadi Sammelan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 161*, Air India Express Limited v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu, (2019) 17 SCC 129*, Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 314*, Balram Gupta v. Union of India, 1987 Supp SCC 228*, and Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301*. These cases were used to support the court’s reasoning that the employee’s withdrawal of resignation was valid as it occurred before the formal acceptance. The Court followed these precedents to determine the outcome of the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The letter dated 15.04.2014, which the employer claimed was the acceptance of the resignation, was considered an internal communication and not a formal acceptance.
• The fact that the employee continued to work and was asked to report to duty indicated that the resignation was not yet final.
• The letters from the employee’s wife requesting the employer not to accept the resignation were also considered as evidence of the employee’s intention to withdraw his resignation.

The Court emphasized that the resignation was effectively withdrawn before its acceptance. The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the sequence of events and the communications between the parties. The Court’s priority was to ensure fairness and justice to the employee, considering the long service he had rendered to the organization.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, particularly the sequence of events and the communications between the parties. While legal principles were considered, the factual analysis played a more significant role in the court’s conclusion.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that the resignation was accepted before the withdrawal request. The court emphasized the importance of a formal acceptance and considered the employee’s continued service and the communications between the parties as evidence that the resignation was not yet final.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance. The Court found that the employer’s internal communication on 15.04.2014 was not sufficient to constitute a formal acceptance. The Court also noted that the employee continued to work and was asked to report to duty, which indicated that the resignation was not yet final. The Court considered the letters from the employee’s wife as further evidence that the employee did not intend to resign. The Court concluded that the employee had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance, and therefore, the employer’s decision to reject the withdrawal request was not valid.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal both agreed that the employee had effectively withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted by the employer. There were no dissenting opinions.

The decision has implications for future cases involving the withdrawal of resignations. It clarifies that internal communications are not sufficient to constitute a formal acceptance and that the employer must communicate the acceptance to the employee. The decision also emphasizes the importance of the employee’s actions and communications in determining whether a resignation has been effectively withdrawn.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. The decision was based on the existing principle that a resignation can be withdrawn before its acceptance. The Court’s analysis focused on the facts of the case and the specific circumstances surrounding the resignation and its withdrawal.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment of the Single Judge:

• “In the present case, the resignation which was submitted on 05.12.2013 with a request to accept it at the expiry of one month was stated to have been accepted only on 15.04.2014. There is undue delay in accepting the resignation by the respondents.”
• “In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner having submitted his letter dated 26.5.2014 seeking to withdraw the resignation much before the effective date, 01.07.2014 with official order on 15.07.2014 by which the petitioner was relieved of his duties, withdrawal of resignation ought to have been accepted by the respondents and continued the petitioner in service.”
• “The contrary decision by the respondents by the communication dated 23.06.2014 that withdrawal of resignation is not accepted and decision accepting the resignation stands good, is not sustainable in law….”

Key Takeaways

• An employee can withdraw their resignation before it is formally accepted by the employer.
• Internal communications by the employer are not sufficient to constitute a formal acceptance of resignation.
• The employer must communicate the acceptance of resignation to the employee for it to be effective.
• The employee’s actions and communications are important in determining whether a resignation has been effectively withdrawn.
• The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of fairness and justice in service disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The appellant shall be reinstated into service within thirty days from the date of the order (13 September 2024).
• The appellant shall be entitled to receive 50 percent of salary for the period he was relieved from service (01.07.2014 to the date of reinstatement).
• The amount shall be calculated and paid within a period of two months from the date of the order.
• The period of non-service shall be counted for pensionary benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a resignation can be withdrawn before its formal acceptance by the employer. This case reinforces the existing legal principle. The Supreme Court did not introduce any new legal doctrines, but it clarified the application of the existing principle to the facts of the case. The Court emphasized that internal communications are not sufficient to constitute a formal acceptance and that the employer must communicate the acceptance to the employee.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka. The Court held that the employee, S.D. Manohara, had effectively withdrawn his resignation before it was accepted by the employer, Konkan Railway Corporation. The Court directed the reinstatement of the employee with 50% back pay for the period he was out of service. This decision underscores the importance of formal acceptance of resignation and the employee’s right to withdraw it before such acceptance.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories: Resignation, Withdrawal of Resignation, Reinstatement, Konkan Railway Corporation, Employee Rights, Service Dispute
Parent Category: General Principles of Law
Child Category: Resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance

FAQ

Q: Can an employee withdraw their resignation after submitting it?
A: Yes, an employee can withdraw their resignation before it is formally accepted by the employer. This is a well-established principle in service law.

Q: What constitutes acceptance of a resignation?
A: Acceptance of a resignation must be formally communicated to the employee. Internal communications within the employer’s organization are not sufficient.

Q: What happens if an employer delays accepting a resignation?
A: If an employer delays accepting a resignation, the employee may have the right to withdraw it before formal acceptance.

Q: What if the employee continues to work after submitting their resignation?
A: If the employee continues to work and the employer allows it, it can be seen as an indication that the resignation is not yet final and can be withdrawn.

Q: What if the employer asks the employee to report to duty after the resignation?
A: If the employer asks the employee to report to duty after the resignation, it can be seen as an indication that the resignation was not final and can be withdrawn.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment for employees?
A: This judgment reinforces the employee’s right to withdraw their resignation before formal acceptance and ensures fairness in service disputes.