- (1.) Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - Heard Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The dispute in this petition is about the resignation tendered by the petitioner expressing his intention to quit his services from the post of Labour Officer in the respondent-Spinning Mill, and his subsequent withdrawal of the said intention, which according to the petitioner was not attended to. Consequently, the impugned order of acceptance of resignation dated 7th December, 1998 is vitiated. The prayer therefore is to quash the said order and to treat the petitioner to have been continuing in service and extend him all consequential benefits.
(3.) We had heard the arguments on a previous occasion and on the issue of fact relating to the tendering of an application for withdrawing of resignation, we had called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to file a better affidavit. The order passed on 8.8.2017 is extracted herein under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a writ petition by an erstwhile Labour Officer, who while working at the unit of the Federation in Farrukhabad tendered a letter of resignation on 1st September, 1998. The petitioner alleges that he had tendered another letter dated 30th November, 1998 withdrawing his letter of resignation as it had not been accepted by then. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has also sought an amendment application that was allowed bringing on record the letter of acceptance of resignation dated 7th December, 1998 and praying for its quashing on the ground that the petitioner had already withdrawn the resignation as such there was no occasion for having accepted the same. The issue, therefore, is as to whether the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation and whether the rules do permit any such withdrawal. For this, the petitioner has filed on record the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Spinning Mills Central Service Rules, 1993. However, Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said rules would not be applicable in the present controversy and the dispute would be governed by the Manual of Service Bye-laws adopted by the Board in its meeting held on 30th March, 1978 which is described as the U.P. State Spinning Mills Company (No. 1) (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Bye-laws, 1978. The said Manual of Service Bye-laws in Clause (6) of Chapter 3 provides for an option of the employee to quit the services. The same is extracted here-in-under:- "6. Option of permanent employee to quit service? (1) Every permanent employee shall have the option to quit the service by giving to the appointing authority three months notice or paying to the Corporation an amount equal to his pay for three months, or such lesser period by which the notice falls short of three months : Provided that the appointing authority may, in any special case, waive the required period of notice or realization of the amount in lieu of notice, in whole or in part . (2) Such quintal shall have the effect of dis-entitling the employee of all such terminal benefits as are admissible to employees retiring/superannuating in normal course under the applicable rules. Provided that nothing in this bye-law shall deprive the employee from receiving back the amounts deposited by him with the Corporation from time to time together with interest, if any, allowable on such deposits in normal course. (3) As an exception to sub-bye-law (1), it shall be open to the appointing authority to disallow the exercise of the option if any disciplinary proceedings are pending or are contemplated against the employee." Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the applicability of the aforesaid rules on the facts of the present case. Thus, the aforesaid rule being applicable, it has now to be seen as to whether the petitioner had an option to withdraw the same and if so, whether he had tendered the letter of withdrawal as alleged by him. This is necessary to be gone into as the respondents in their counter affidavits have categorically denied the receipt of any such letter of withdrawal to which the petitioner has come up with a reply in paragraph no. 4 of the rejoinder affidavit asserting that the petitioner had tendered the said letter by registered post as well and according to the information received from the concerned post office, the said letter had been delivered to the respondent addressee on 5th December, 1998. Thus, according to the petitioner if the letter of withdrawal had been received by the respondents on 5th December, 1998, they could not have proceeded to accept the resignation on 7th December, 1998. Sri Awasthi contends that this averment about tendering of the letter of withdrawal by registered post has surfaced for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit. In such circumstances, the respondent would like to file a reply to the same. Sri Awasthi prays for and is granted three weeks' time for the said purpose. List immediately thereafter. It shall be open to the petitioner to file a reply in the event any such affidavit is served on the counsel for the petitioner.";