BANK OF INDIA Vs. KALIDAS HARIBHAU MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- Heard Mr. Pai, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satpute, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) MR. Pai, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by relying upon the telegram dated 10-10-1990 as a communication for withdrawal of resignation letter. Mr. Pai submits that the expression lien in the telegram dated 10-10-1990 is not withdrawal of resignation letter. According to him the employee respondent sent a notice of resignation of three months on 10-7-1990 and on the expiry of three months, the resignation letter came into effect automatically and, therefore, the appeal Court erred in decreeing the plaintiff s suit.

(3.) THE employee who is respondent herein and original plaintiff in the suit sent the communication to the appellant employer on 10-7-1990. The said communication was in the nature of three months notice of resignation. The communication of 10-7-1990 (Exhibit 45) reads thus :