Supreme Court rules, acceptance of resignation leads to termination of employment; communication of acceptance to the employee is irrelevant
In Shri Manohar Bande v. Utkranti Mandal & Ors1, the Supreme Court held that non-communication of acceptance of resignation letter by the employer does not qualify as a ground to challenge termination of employment. Appellant, being a school teacher, tendered his resignation to the school management and consequently, the resignation was accepted. The appellant contended that his termination was invalid as acceptance of resignation was not communicated to him, and he submitted his letter seeking withdrawal of resignation before the communication of acceptance of the resignation.
Supreme Court observed that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 does not lay down any strict guidelines about how the resignation letter should be accepted. Further, placing reliance on North Zone Cultural centre v. Vedapathi Dinesh Kumar2, the Supreme Court held that contention raised by the appellant about withdrawal of resignation before communication of its acceptance does not hold water.
Bombay High Court held that supervision of non-direct employees of an establishment qualifies as supervisory capacity
In Mr. Jobi Joseph v. M/s Cadbury India Limited & Anr.3 the High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that merely because an individual supervises activities of persons who are not direct employees of an establishment does not and cannot mean that he ceases to be employed in supervisory capacity. The petitioner, a senior sales executive, contended that supervision by petitioner of employees of distributors does not mean that he was employed in supervisory capacity.
The court held that the nature of duties performed by a person would determine whether his employment is in supervisory capacity and not to determine whom he supervises, which is irrelevant. Thus, the real test for determining supervisory nature of duties is not whether persons on whom supervision is exercised are employees of establishment or not, but the nature of duties attached to the job. Further, an individual acting in the capacity of manager or supervisor may have to supervise activities of either contract workers or transporters.
Supreme Court: an employee cannot dictate terms of employment to the employer
In M/s Bharti Airtel v. A.S. Raghavendra4, the respondent, who was appointed as the Regional Business Head for South, filed a petition alleging he was coerced into resigning. The Labour Court, after analysing the facts, concluded that the ID Act did not apply to this case, as the respondent performed managerial roles and did not qualify as a "workman". A division bench of the Karnataka High Court overturned this judgment, holding that the respondent's lack of power to appoint, dismiss, or conduct disciplinary inquiries meant he fell under the definition of a "workman".
Supreme Court on April 2, 2024, upon analysing the resignation letter, held that mere mention of "not of his free will" would not mean respondent was forced to resign. Further, a person, in the employment of any company, cannot dictate terms of his employment to his employer. He has channels of venting her/his grievances but ultimately, it is the view of the competent authority within the organisation that will prevail with regard to his appraisal/rating. The Supreme Court also held that nature of respondent's duties did not bring him within the ambit of a "workman" as defined under the ID Act. Consequently, the judgment of the Labour Court was revived and restored.
Footnotes
1 Civil Appeal No. 5355 of 2024.
2 (2003) 5 SCC 455
3 Writ Petition No. 18486 of 2012.
4 Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023
Originally published 21 June 2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
