Shaikh Riyasat Ali v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial

I am directed to convey that the Management is pleased to accept the resignation of Mr.Riyasat Ali, Typist-cum-Assistant, Mumbai Branch with effect from 28th November 1996 (AN) after waiving the notice period. His dues may be paid on production of Clearance Certificate.

28.11.1996 3 sd/- M.L.Chugh Addl. Genl. Manager (Pers.)" The employee 29th November 1996 a letter Managing Director Corporation stating therein tension drastic giving resignation. He stated letter tension was created by Mr.T.E.P. Raja (Assistant Manager).

Then employee raised industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Mumbai for adjudication.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal recorded evidence hearing parties 20th May 2002 illegality committed by the management in accepting the resignation of the employee with effect from 26th November 1996.

Aggrieved Central Government Industrial Tribunal passed 20th May 2002, employee petition before learned Single Judge Court. The learned Single Judge interference called Industrial tribunal and, consequently, dismissed petition 8th August

2005. 4 Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

- Mr.I.A.Saiyed, learned counsel appellant employee submitted resignation letter 26th November 1996 voluntary harassment caused Mr.T.E.P.Raja (Assistant Manager (Administration)) employee moment weakness resignation tendered employee, application withdrawal resignation, management granted same. He submit employee withdraw resignation within notice period despite resignation letter requested management accept resignation forthwith immediate effect. Mr.I.A.Saiyed, learned counsel relied judgments Supreme Court, (i) Dr.Prabha Atri v. State U.P. others, (2003) (2003) (2003) 1 1 1 SCC SCC SCC 701; 701; 701; (ii) Punjab National Bank vs. P.K.Mittal, 1989 1989 1989 Supp. (2) Supp. (2) Supp. (2) SCC SCC SCC 175 175 175 (iii) Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. & cannot withdrawn explanation satisfactory, resignation accepted immediate effect. By separate day, decided domestic enquiry should proceeded letter resignation. Thereafter, delinquent stated resigned a unnecessary something letter

9.1.1999. In backdrop facts, Supreme Court "with immediately effect" letter

9.1.1999 importance dehors context, language letter purport remaining portion indicating circumstances written. In present concerned, resignation letter 26th November 1996 voluntary "with immediate effect" meaning held by the Industrial Tribunal. The case of Dr.Prabha Atri thus does not help the appellant.

In Punjab National Bank v.P.K.Mittal (supra) , delinquent a permanent officer bank, 8 purported resign service personal reasons. He receipt letter should treated commencement notice period that, inclusive 30, same, resignation become effective June

1986. However, management accepted resignation before expiry notice period waiving condition notice. In backdrop, Supreme Court delinquent’s resignation effect either chosen mentioned notice expiry months accepted earlier date. Obviously, appellant rather against because management accept appellant’s resignation date chosen by him i.e. with immediate effect and that is what has been done.

The relied learned counsel appellant Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. (supra) appellant. The Shambhu Murari Sinha a voluntary retirement scheme framed employer. The appellant applied voluntary retirement 18th October 1995 accepted management 30th July 1997 condition release detailed 9 particulars follow. On 7th August 1997 appellant a letter withdrawing option voluntary retirement scheme registered post, response received. The appellant a reminder 24th September 1997 withdrawing option scheme. This letter received company 25th September 1997, response 25th September 1997 appellant sought released service effect 26th September

1997. The action company challenged employee. Dealing provisions scheme, Supreme Court voluntary retirement scheme provide condition option voluntary retirement exercised employee accepted employer, employee entitled withdraw voluntary retirement. Dealing effective date, Supreme Court appellant withdraw option voluntary retirement acceptance, before actual release from the employment. We are afraid, the said judgement of the Supreme Court has no application.

Mr.Saiyed, learned counsel appellant stated relation employees tendered resignations resignation letters accepted permitted withdraw 10 resignation letters. However, discrimination before Tribunal. The Tribunal justified relating resignation holding employees to the case of the present appellant. Having considered the facts, we do not find any merit in this contention.

The appeal does not deserve to be admitted and is dismissed in limine. (R. M. LODHA, J.) M. LODHA, J.) (R.(R. M. LODHA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)