- (1.) The facts of this case are a few and simple. The petitioner was appointed by M/s Compton Greaves Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company') by a letter of appointment dated November 29, 1968, a copy of which has been placed on record as Ex 1 After serving the respondent No. 2 for some time, the petitioner cent his letter of resignation (Ex. 2) on March 17, 1975 stating therein that as per terms of his appointment, the said letter may be treated as one month's notice before the petitioner is released, from the service of the Company. The case of the petitioner is that before the expiry of the notice period of one month, he withdraw his resignation telegraphically on April 16, 1976, but the company thereafter intimated to the petitioner that his resignation was accepted by it. According to the petitioner he continued to remain in the service of the company and taking the view that hit services were unlawfully terminated by the Company, the petitioner filed an application under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jaipur, which is the Competent Authority appointed under the aforesaid provision. The case of the company before the aforesaid authority was that the petitioner bad tendered his resignation by giving one month's notice and the same bad been accepted by the company by its letter dated April 14, 1975 and thus the employment of the petitioner came to an end by his resignation used that there was no question of termination of the petitioner's services in the present case. The competent Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner bad tendered an unconditional and unqualified resignation which was accepted by the company by its letter dated April 14, 1575 and as the services of the petitioner came to an end on account of his resignation, the provisions of Section 28A of the Act had no application. The Authority also held that the alleged withdraws of the resignation by the petitioner on April 16, 1975 was of no effect. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his resignation at any time before the communication of its acceptance by the company to him In support of this contention, learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1963 AIR(SC) 395 and In State of Punjab v. Amarsingh Harika, 1966 2 LLJ 188SC . It any be painted out that both these cases related to termination of public employment and it was held by their Lordships in the aforesaid cases that an order of termination became effective only after the communication thereof to the person concerned. There can thus be no doubt that before the order of termination of public employment is communicated to the person concerned, the Government or the competent authority has a right to reconsider the matter and come to a different conclusion However, the decisions given in the aforesaid cases are not applicable in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as there is no question of termination of employment, much less of public employment, involved in the present case. Amar Singh's case , 1966 2 LLJ 188SC was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar v. Union of India, 1970 1 LLJ 13SC wherein the question of resignation of a public servant came up for consideration before their Lordships. In Raj Rajkumar's case , 1970 1 LLJ13SC , the petitioner resigned his office as a member of the Indian Administrative Service by a letter dated August 21, 1964 addressed to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan. On October 31, 1964 the Government of India accepted his resignation and requested the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to intimate the date on which the concerned officer was relieved of his duties, so that a formal notification could be issued. However, before the acceptance of his resignation could be communicated to Shri Raj Kumar, he changed hit mind and by his letter dated November 27, 1964, he requested for the withdrawal of his resignation. The acceptance of resignation was ultimately conveyed to him on March 20, 1965. On these facts, it was urged that as the petitioner had withdrawn his letter of resignation prior to the communication of acceptance of resignation to him, the resignation was ineffective. The aforesaid contention was, however, repelled by their Lordships and it was held that communication of acceptance of resignation was not material, as the resignation of the petitioner came into effect from the acceptance there of by the competent authority. It was further observed by their Lordships that the principle that an order terminating employment is not effective until it is intimated to the employee concerned, as laid down in Amar Singh's case , 1966 2 LLJ 188SC was not applicable to the case of resignation by an employee. The following passage from their Lordships' decision in Rajkumar's case , 1970 1 LLJ13SC , may be usefully quoted in this context: Termination of employment by order passed by the government does not become effective until the order is intimated to the employee. But where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which 'he letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw hit resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus penitential but not thereafter. (emphasis added)
(3.) In view of the aforesaid decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the first contention of tee learned Counsel 13 untenable and deserves to be repelled.;