Service Law – Withdrawal of Resignation – Respondent was working as a pilot in the appellant-Company – On 03.07.2017 respondent communicated through e-mail her resignation to the appellant – In view of her resignation, appellant engaged a replacement pilot – On 02.09.2017, the resignation sent by the respondent was accepted by the appellants – Thereafter on 18.12.2017, respondent sent an e-mail and sought withdrawal of her resignation – Her request for withdrawal of resignation was not accepted by the appellants – Writ petition by the respondent – High Court held that the resignation tendered by the respondent could be withdrawn by her before she was actually relieved from the service – On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that they had already taken appropriate steps for finding and training an alternative and as such the instant case came within the exceptions acknowledged in the decisions of Gopal Chandra Mishra and Balram Gupta – Held: It is settled that normally, until the resignation becomes effective, it is open to an employee to withdraw his resignation – When would the resignation become effective may depend upon the governing service regulations and/or the terms and conditions of the office/post – In the instant case, the provisions of the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), the terms and conditions of appointment specifically stated that the respondent would give six months’ notice in case she desired to leave the services of the appellant – The underlying principle and the basic idea behind stipulation of the mandatory notice period is public interest – By very nature of the job profile a replacement for a pilot does not come so easily and therefore, the period of six months – The CAR acknowledges the fact that it would require considerable expenses and efforts to train the concerned replacement before he could be a worthy substitute – In the present case, steps were taken by the appellant to discharge such obligation and replacement was found – Therefore, the instant matter would be within the exception stipulated in the decisions of Gopal Chandra Mishra and Balram Gupta, and the respondent could not have withdrawn the resignation – Air Craft Act, 1934 – ss.5,7 and 8(2) – Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – s.4 – Air Craft Rules, 1937 – Part XII.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that normally, until the resignation becomes effective, it is open to an employee to withdraw his resignation. When would the resignation become effective may depend upon the governing service regulations and/or the terms and conditions of the office/post. As stated in Gopal Chandra Mishra, “in the absence of anything to the contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office/post” or “in the absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘prospective resignation’ can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective”. Further, as laid down in Balram Gupta, “If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his job, that would be another matter.” [Para 11] [1001-E-G]
2. In the light of the aforementioned principles the issue whether the respondent could have withdrawn her letter of resignation depends upon answers to the following questions:
A) Whether the stipulation of the notice period in the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) is intended to safeguard the interest of the employee? ; and
B) Whether the provisions of the CAR and the governing principles stipulated therein are in the nature of special provisions coming within the exception stipulated in Gopal Chandra Mishra and Balram Gupta cases thereby disabling the respondent from withdrawing her resignation? [Para 12] [1001-G-H; 1002-A-B]
3. The CAR acknowledges that it takes considerable period to train a pilot to operate an aircraft and that as a part of the training, the new incumbent will be required to pass technical and performance examinations and will have to undergo simulator and flying training and to undertake skill test to satisfy the requirements. Even after imparting of such training, said person would function only as a co-pilot till he reaches the level of expertise required of a pilot. The CAR states that the resignation without minimum notice of six months could result in last minute cancellation of flights and harassment to passengers. As the pilots are highly skilled personnel, a decision was taken that any act on part of the pilots including resignation from the airlines without minimum notice period of six months be treated as an act against public interest. [Para 13] [1002-C-D]
4. The underlying principle and the basic idea behind stipulation of the mandatory notice period is public interest. It is not the interest of the employee which is intended to be safeguarded but the public interest which is to be sub-served. It seeks to ensure that there would not be any last minute cancellation of flights causing enormous inconvenience to the travellers. It is for this reason that the concerned pilot is required to serve till the expiry of the notice period. The notice period may stand curtailed if NOC is given to the concerned pilot and the resignation is accepted even before the expiring of the notice period. It may, in a given case, be possible that the trained manpower to replace the pilot, who had tendered resignation, could be made available before the expiry of such notice period, in which case the employer is given a choice under Clause 3.7 of the CAR. Even in such eventuality, the guiding idea or parameter is public interest. [Para 14] [1003-A-C]
5. The stipulation of notice period is, therefore, only to sub-serve public interest and is designed to enable the air transport undertaking or employer to find a suitable replacement or a substitute. By very nature of the job profile a replacement for a pilot does not come so easily and therefore, the period of six months. The CAR acknowledges the fact that it would require considerable expenses and efforts to train the concerned replacement before he could be a worthy substitute. The notice period enables the air transport undertaking or the employer to gear itself up in that direction and obliges it to find a substitute or a replacement. The obligation to find a suitable replacement begins immediately on receipt of letter of resignation. In the present case, steps were taken by the appellant to discharge such obligation and replacement was found. The normal principle that an employee can at any time before the resignation becomes effective, withdraw his resignation will therefore be subject to the core principles of the CAR. Therefore, the instant matter would be within the exception stipulated in decisions of the Gopal Chandra Mishra and Balram Gupta, and the respondent could not have withdrawn the resignation. [Para 14] [1003-D-G]
Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Mishra (1978) 2 SCC
301 : [1978] 3 SCR 12 – followed.
Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Another (1987) Suppl. SCC 228 : [1987] SCR 1173 ; Jai Ram v. Union of India AIR 1954 SC 584 ; Raj Kumar v. Union of India [1968] 3 SCR 857 – relied on.
Srikantah S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 314 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 156 ; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Another (1998) 9 SCC 559; Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Limited and Another (2002) 3 SCC 437 : [2002]
2 SCR 396; P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology (1981) 1 SCC 405 : [1981] 2 SCR 490; Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal [1989] 2 Suppl. SCC 175 : [1989] 1 SCR 612 ; Moti Ram v. Param Dev (1993) 2 SCC 725 : [1993] 2 SCR 250; Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280 : [1997] 2 SCR 1170 ; Nand Keshwar Prasad v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 461; Union of India v. Wing Commander T.
Parthasarathy (2001) 1 SCC 158 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 531; Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (2003) 2 SCC 721 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 438 ; Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Denis Solomon (2004) 9 SCC 461 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 465; Secy., Technical Education, U.P. and Ors. v. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay (2007) 4 SCC
492 : [2007] 4 SCR 976; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Raghuvir Singh Narang and Another (2010) 5 SCC 335 : [2010] 4 SCR 299 ; Union of India and Ors. v. Hitendra Kumar Soni (2014) 13 SCC 204 : [2014] 6 SCR 563 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.