SRI KRISHNA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit being Original Suit No. 1003 of 1965 filed by Shri Krishana, the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 784/1980 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8217 of 1984 against the defendant Kanpur Industrial Development Cooperative Estate Limited which is the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12284 of 1984 challenging the resignation tendered by him on March 5, 1965 which was accepted on March 9, 1965 by the General Manager of the defendant alleging that the alleged resignation had been obtained under duress and in any case had been withdrawn on March 6, 1965 before its acceptance rendering it to be inoperative and ineffective in law and claiming a decree of prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from performing his duties until his services are terminated in accordance with law. This suit was decreed by the in Additional Munsif, Kanpur on November 2, 1970. The trial court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff Shri Krishna that the acceptance of his resignation in question was illegal and ineffective and the defendent was restrained by means of a permanent injunction from preventing the plaintiff from performing his duties until his services were terminated in accordance with law. The trial court granted a further decree in favour of the plaintiff entitling him to get payment of salary at the rate of Rs. 640A per month for the period March 1, 1965 to April 30, 1965.

(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree the Kanpur Industrial Development Co-operative Estate Limited filed an appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 417/70 and was disposed of vide the judgment and order dated April 17, 1973 whereunder allowing the appeal the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff Sri Krishna was dismissed. The appellate court after considering the evidence and materials on record had arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff who had been caught red handed accepting illegal gratification had tendered resignation in question of his own accord and free will. The claim of the plaintiff Shri Krishna that the resignation was obtained from him under duress and coercion was disbelieved. It was also held that the order of the District Magistrate dated March 7, 1965 accepting the resignation of the plaintiff was without jurisdiction. As the resignation could be accepted by the Board of Directors in any case, the resignation having been withdrawn on March 6, 1965 there was nothing to be accepted. The appellate court further came to the conclusion that the relief as claimed by the plaintiff could not be granted.

(3.) It appears that during the pendency of the appeal referred to herein before the employer had issued a letter dated November 30, 1970 to Shri Krishna the workman informing him that an appeal against the decree passed by the trial court had been filed which had admitted and the operation of the decree passed by the trial court had been stayed until further orders but without prejudice to the result of the appeal and without prejudice to their contention that the services of Shri Krishna had already come to an end on March 5, 1965 by virtue of the resignation tendered by him the employer had decided to terminate the employment of the workman concerned by tendering one month's pay in lieu of notice to remove any controversy regarding his future employment. In this letter it was also mentioned that the letter was being sent reserving full rights of challenging the correctness of the decree passed by the trial court.