Resignation Not Final Until Employer Officially Communicates To Employee: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in a recent judgement said that if the resignation letter is withdrawn by the employee before it was officially accepted by the employer, then the resignation could not be deemed to be accepted.

The Supreme Court in a recent judgement said that if the resignation letter is withdrawn by the employee before it was officially accepted by the employer, then the resignation could not be deemed to be accepted. The top court passed this verdict while allowing reinstatement of an employee to the Railways.

The apex court observed that a mere internal communication about accepting the employee's resignation letter could not be said to be acceptance of the resignation letter. Such an acceptance has to be officially communicated to the employee.

The court noted that the petitioner had served for 23 years at the Konkan Rail Corporation since 1990. He tendered his resignation in December 2013 stating that it may be considered as coming into effect on expiry of one month.

The petitioner informed the court though the resignation letter was accepted with effect from 07.04.2014, there was no official communication about such acceptance to the appellant. On May 26, 2014, the petitioner withdrew his resignation. However, the Railways relieved the employee w.e.f. 01.07.2014.

Although the Railways had accepted his resignation letter from 07.04.2014, the petitioner was called on to report on duty on account of  his "unauthorised absence" from 28.04.2014 to 18.05.2014. Following which the petitioner reported on 19.05.2024.

The top court observed that “asking the appellant to report on duty for considering his unauthorised absence from 28.04.2014 to 18.05.2014 which gives an indication that there was no finality to the letter of resignation dated 05.12.2013.”

The petitioner contended that since the resignation letter dated 05.12.2013 never attained finality, he couldn't be relieved from the job.

The petitioner stated that he was consistently in touch with the employer, and even reported to duty upon being called on by the employer, which showed that the employer didn't accept his resignation.

After the Railways relieved him from services, the petitioner moved the High Court, where a single judge bench ruled in his favour. However, after the Railways appealed against the order, the Division Bench reversed the same. 

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal upheld the single judge order of the high court and observed that since the petitioner reported on duty and was consistently in touch with the employer, it cannot be said that the appellant resigned from the job.

“The respondent-employer strongly relies on the letter of acceptance of resignation dated 15.04.2014 and submits that it has come into effect from 07.04.2014. We are inclined to accept the submission made by the appellant that the letter dated 15.04.2014 is an internal communication. There is no clear evidence about the service of such a letter on the appellant. Further, it is also not denied that the appellant has been continuously in touch with the respondent.”, the verdict read.