M/s. NEW VICTORIA MILLS & Ors. v. SHRIKANT ARYA

M/s. NEW VICTORIA MILLS v. SHRIKANT ARYA 753 of appellant No.1, which extended the cut-off date already fixed for 01.06.2003. The respondent, thus, seeks to plead that once the date from which he was to be relieved was extended, it would amount to non-acceptance of his resignation. The respondent, taking advantage of the aforesaid, ad- dressed a letter on 01.07.2003 claiming that his resignation had not been accepted till that date, and his letter of resignation under the MVRS dated 12.07.2002 may be treated as cancelled. Appellant No.1 refused to act on the same as in their view the resignation letter already stood accepted on 28.05.2003. The respondent was relieved w.e.f. 16.07.2003. The acceptance of resignation and the abolition of the post were simultaneous exercises as that is part of Clause 5.1 of the Scheme. Clause 5.1 also prevents appellant No.1 from appointing anyone else to that post. Thus, once the letter of resignation was accepted on 28.05.2003, the post stood abolished. The letter dated 03.03.2003 cannot be construed as a letter of withdrawal of resignation. The postponement of the cut-off date and the consequent payment which would have to be made to the respondent for those few days is really a matter of financial exercise for appellant No.1, with which the respondent cannot concern himself as long as his resignation is accepted. In contractual terms, appellant No. 1’s acceptance of the respondent’s offer of resignation as available under the MVRS was completed on 28.05.2003. The respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of the postponement of the cut-off date by a few days, during which time the respondent was asked to attend to office, albeit against no sanctioned post. [Paras 36- 39][767-F-H; 768-A-F]

1.6 Appellant No.1 had, in fact, closed down. The MVRS was undisputedly beneficial to the employees who availed of the same. An analysis of the MVRS including Clause 5.1 belies the respondent’s contention that there was any requirement of making the payments in advance. The wordings of the Scheme are clear that acceptance of resignation has to simultaneously happen with the abolition of the post and thereafter, the payments have to be disbursed. The construction given to the MVRS is as per its clauses and the action of the parties under the Scheme, which result in the conclusion that the resignation had already been A B C D E F G H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. accepted on 28.05.2003 before the respondent endeavoured to withdraw the same on 01.06.2003. The mere delay in relieving the respondent from duties would not impact the acceptance of his resignation. In pursuance of the offer and acceptance on 28.05.2003, the transaction was completed. The resignation letter of the respondent stood accepted on 28.05.2003 and the respondent is entitled to the benefits under the Scheme which have already been paid to the respondent albeit without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent in the proceedings. The impugned order is set aside. [Paras 40-43, 45, 46 and 47][769-C-D, E-F, G-H; 770-A, E, G; 771-A]