Supreme Court of India
Nand Keshwar Prasad vs Indian Farmers Fertilizers ... on 1 April, 1998
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1452145/
“11. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the law is well settled by this Court in a number of decisions that unless controlled by condition of service or the statutory provisions, the retirement mentioned in the letter of resignation must take effect from the date mentioned therein and such date cannot be advanced by accepting the resignation from an earlier date when the employee concerned did not intend to retire from such earlier date. It has also been held by this Court that it is open to the employee concerned to withdraw letter of resignation before the same becomes effective…….”
>>>> The Supreme Court judgment by Justice B N Srikrishna, Justice C K Thakker
“ holding that that an employee can withdraw his resignation during the notice period and is entitled to consequential benefits from the company if he is not allowed to work.”
Supreme Court of India
Srikantha S.M vs Bharath Earth Movers Ltd on 7 October, 2005
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1097853/
“The appellant was informed that his resignation had been accepted and he would be relieved `with immediate effect'. It was also stated that the appellant would be entitled for pay towards notice period as per Company rules.”
“It was urged on behalf of the Bank that Regulation 20(2) provided for notice to protect the interest only of the employer (Bank) and to enable it to make other arrangements in the place of the resigning employee. The proviso to clause (2) enabled the Bank to reduce the notice-period to less than three months and as such it was not obligatory for the Bank to wait till the notice period would expire.”
"We are of the opinion that clause (2) of the regulation and its provisons are intended not only for the protection for the bank but also for the benefit of the employee. It is common knowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers in his decision and even in a case where has taken a firm decision to resign, he may not he ready to go out immediately. In most cases he would need a period of adjustment and hence like to defer the actual date of relief form duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to have time to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the resigning employee. Clause (2) is carefully worded keeping both these requirements in mind. It gives the employee a period of adjustment and rethinking. It also enables the bank to have some time to arrange its affairs, with the liberty, in an appropriate case, to accept the resignation of an employee even without the requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under the terms of the regulation. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that in the present case the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on or about April 21, 1986 or on June 30, 1986 and that the bank could not have ``accepted'' that resignation on any earlier date. The letter dated February 7, 1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction."
From India, Chandigarh
42Nand Keshwar Prasad vs Indian Farmers Fertilizers ... on 1 April, 1998
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1452145/
“11. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the law is well settled by this Court in a number of decisions that unless controlled by condition of service or the statutory provisions, the retirement mentioned in the letter of resignation must take effect from the date mentioned therein and such date cannot be advanced by accepting the resignation from an earlier date when the employee concerned did not intend to retire from such earlier date. It has also been held by this Court that it is open to the employee concerned to withdraw letter of resignation before the same becomes effective…….”
>>>> The Supreme Court judgment by Justice B N Srikrishna, Justice C K Thakker
“ holding that that an employee can withdraw his resignation during the notice period and is entitled to consequential benefits from the company if he is not allowed to work.”
Supreme Court of India
Srikantha S.M vs Bharath Earth Movers Ltd on 7 October, 2005
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1097853/
“The appellant was informed that his resignation had been accepted and he would be relieved `with immediate effect'. It was also stated that the appellant would be entitled for pay towards notice period as per Company rules.”
“It was urged on behalf of the Bank that Regulation 20(2) provided for notice to protect the interest only of the employer (Bank) and to enable it to make other arrangements in the place of the resigning employee. The proviso to clause (2) enabled the Bank to reduce the notice-period to less than three months and as such it was not obligatory for the Bank to wait till the notice period would expire.”
"We are of the opinion that clause (2) of the regulation and its provisons are intended not only for the protection for the bank but also for the benefit of the employee. It is common knowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers in his decision and even in a case where has taken a firm decision to resign, he may not he ready to go out immediately. In most cases he would need a period of adjustment and hence like to defer the actual date of relief form duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to have time to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the resigning employee. Clause (2) is carefully worded keeping both these requirements in mind. It gives the employee a period of adjustment and rethinking. It also enables the bank to have some time to arrange its affairs, with the liberty, in an appropriate case, to accept the resignation of an employee even without the requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under the terms of the regulation. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that in the present case the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on or about April 21, 1986 or on June 30, 1986 and that the bank could not have ``accepted'' that resignation on any earlier date. The letter dated February 7, 1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction."
From India, Chandigarh
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Notice period.jpg
Notice Period Extension Letter Format.doc