Employment LawSupreme Court Clarifies: Resignation Effective Upon Acceptance, Even Without Communication to Employee

INTRODUCTION

The Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Shriram Manohar Bande Vs. Uktranti Mandal and Ors. Civil appeal no. 5355 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024, primarily focused on the acceptance of resignation under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Act). The ruling clarified the legal standing regarding the effectiveness of resignation acceptance, particularly in the absence of communication to the resigning employee. This case involves an appeal by the Appellant against the judgment of the High Court, which overturned the Tribunal’s decision that had reinstated the Appellant as an Assistant Teacher at Vasantrao Naik High School. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the Appellant’s termination was unlawful and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. However, the High Court found that the Respondents had valid grounds for their actions, leading to the current appeal. The core issues revolve around the validity of the Appellant’s resignation and the procedural compliance of the Respondents in accepting that resignation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellant was employed as an Assistant Teacher at Vasantrao Naik High School (hereinafter referred to as Respondent no.2), which is managed by Respondent No. 1, an educational society. On 10.10.2017, the Appellant submitted his resignation. However, he attempted to withdraw this resignation on 25.10.2017, and communicated this withdrawal 03.11.2017. Despite his attempts to return to work on 23.11.2017, he was denied access and subsequently received a letter on 27.11.2017, relieving him of his duties. The Appellant challenged his termination by filing an appeal with the Tribunal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The Tribunal ruled in favour of the Appellant, stating that his resignation had been lawfully withdrawn and that the Respondents had fabricated documents to support their claims. The Respondents contested the Tribunal’s decision in the High Court, which ultimately ruled in their favour, leading to the Appellant’s current appeal.

ISSUES BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Whether the resolution dated 13.10.2017, which accepted the Appellant’s resignation, is a manufactured document.

Whether there was any non-compliance with the provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules regarding the acceptance of the Appellant’s resignation. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Appellant contended that only the management committee had the authority to accept his resignation, and the school committee’s involvement was improper under the MEPS Act and Rules.

The Appellant claimed that the resolution accepting his resignation was fabricated and that he had lawfully withdrawn his resignation. The Appellant emphasized that the lack of communication regarding the acceptance of his resignation rendered the termination invalid.

The Respondents, represented by Mr. Sunil Murarka, supported the High Court’s ruling, arguing that the Tribunal had incorrectly dismissed the resolution dated 13.10.2017. The Respondents maintained that the Appellant’s resignation was voluntary and that the management committee had followed proper procedures in accepting it.

The Respondents contended that the Appellant was estopped from claiming that his resignation was withdrawn after it had been accepted.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, held the both issues in favor of the Respondents. The Court determined that the resolution dated 13.10.2017, was not a manufactured document. It noted that the Tribunal had overlooked critical information in the Respondents’ written statement, which clarified that the management committee had accepted the resignation before the school committee acted on it.

The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that there was no non-compliance with the MEPS Act and Rules regarding the acceptance of the resignation. It emphasized that the Appellant had voluntarily tendered his resignation and that the management had the authority to accept it. The Court also noted that the MEPS Act and Rules did not require the communication of acceptance to the employee for the resignation to be valid.

AMLEGALS REMARKS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s affirmation that a resignation is effective from the date of acceptance, irrespective of whether the employee is informed, is a pivotal clarification. This ruling emphasizes the legal principle that the act of acceptance itself is what validates the resignation, rather than the communication of that acceptance.

This decision has significant implications for employment law, particularly in educational institutions. It underscores the necessity for management to adhere to proper procedures when handling resignations, ensuring that all actions are documented and compliant with the MEPS Act.

While the ruling supports management’s authority to accept resignations, it also raises concerns about employee rights. The lack of requirement for communication may leave employees vulnerable, as they might be unaware of their employment status until it is too late to contest a termination. The ruling sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving resignation and termination disputes. It reinforces the notion that procedural compliance is essential, but it also invites scrutiny regarding the balance of power between employers and employees in the resignation process.

Team AMLEGALS Assisted by  Ms. Kritika Dwivedi (Intern)