QUARBAN ALI Vs. TELETRONIX LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. I.P. Gairola, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a driver in the year 1987 in the Teletronic Ltd., Bhimtal, District Nainital, which is a subsidiary company of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. and a Government enterprise. The petitioner was confirmed on the post of driver and it is alleged that there was no complaint with regard to his work and performance. By means of a letter dated 31st October, 1993, the petitioner submitted his resignation, which was effective from 31st January, 1994. The petitioner had a second thought and changed his mind and consequently, wrote a letter dated 31st December, 1993 withdrawing his resignation letter. This letter was received by the respondents on 1st January, 1994. Inspite of the withdrawal of the resignation letter, the petitioner was not allowed to enter the premises and, on the other hand, was served with a letter dated 30th December, 1993 which was sent by registered post on 7th January, 1994 in which it was indicated that the resignation letter of the petitioner had been accepted and that the petitioner had been relieved from the post of driver w.e.f. 31st December, 1993 and that the petitioner was entitled to be paid the salary for the month of January, 1994. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, has filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 30.12.1993 and further praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and allow the petitioner to continue to work as a driver in the respondents/company.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit submitting that the petitioner had submitted his resignation on 31st October, 1993 on account of his domestic problems which was forwarded to the head office and was received on 7th November, 1993 and the same was forwarded by the Personnel Officer and Deputy Manager of the Head Office for its approval. The respondents submitted that the Managing Director of the Company accepted the resignation of the petitioner on 11.11.1993 and that the petitioner was duly relieved by an order dated 30.12.1993. The respondents submitted that since the resignation had already been accepted on 11.11.1993, the question of the petitioner revoking the resignation by its letter dated 31st December, 1993 does not arise.