The Supreme Court adjudicated a long-standing service dispute concerning whether an employee's resignation was validly withdrawn before its acceptance by the employer. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, reinstating him into service and directing the employer to pay 50% of the salary for the period during which the appellant was out of service.

Key Facts:

1. Employment and Resignation:

   • The appellant served the respondent since 1990.
   • On 05.12.2013, he tendered his resignation, requesting it be effective after one month.

2. Dispute over Withdrawal of Resignation:

   • The respondent claimed the resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014, effective from 07.04.2014, and rejected the appellant's withdrawal request dated 26.05.2014.
   • The appellant argued that the acceptance letter was an internal communication and not properly served on him.

3. Crucial Communications:

   • The appellant continued working, including reporting on 19.05.2014.
   • The respondent requested the appellant to report for duty on 10.05.2014, which undermined their claim that the resignation had already been accepted.

4. Court Proceedings:

   • A Single Judge allowed the appellant's writ petition, directing reinstatement.
   • The Division Bench overturned this decision, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

5. Supreme Court's Decision:

   • The Supreme Court held that the appellant had withdrawn his resignation before its acceptance.
   • It set aside the Division Bench's ruling and ordered the appellant's reinstatement with 50% back wages for the period of his absence.

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Resignation Withdrawal Before Acceptance: The well-established principle that an employee may withdraw their resignation before its acceptance was upheld. The Court referenced Air India Express Limited v. Captain Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu (2019) and other precedents.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Internal Communication vs. Formal Communication: The resignation acceptance was deemed invalid due to the lack of formal communication to the appellant.
• Continuous Employment: The appellant's continued engagement with the employer and the employer's communication requiring his attendance supported the conclusion that the resignation had not taken final effect.

Subject:

Employment Dispute, Resignation Withdrawal, Service Law, Reinstatement