BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28/07/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.A(MD) No.629 of 2007 S.Arumugam ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited, Madurai Division - I, Madurai - 625 020. ... Respondent/Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.3227 of 2007 dated 09.04.2007. !For Appellant ... Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam ^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Prakash :JUDGMENT
M.VENUGOPAL,J
This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved against
the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 09.04.2007 passed in
W.P(MD)No.3227 of 2007, in dismissing the writ petition.
2. The appellant/petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)No.3227 of 2007, praying to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, in calling for the records of the respondent in regard
to the order dated 14.06.2005 in rejecting the application of the appellant/
petitioner for re-appointment after having resigned his job and the same being
accepted, as per the Corporation Standing Orders and Public Services Rules.
3. The learned Single Judge has passed an order inter alia observing that
‘the resignation letter of the appellant/petitioner dated 21.04.2001 has been
accepted by the respondent and the same cannot be withdrawn by the
appellant/petitioner to suit his convenience and that the Rule 15 of the Tamil
Nadu Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947, is for the benefit of
an employee and if an employee dispenses with the notice while submitting his
resignation which he wants to be accepted on the same day in order to enable him
to contest elections, now he cannot go back from his stand and take a stand to
the effect that his resignation should not have been accepted by the Management
since one month time has not been given to him’ and further has observed in
regard to the plea that in the case of another employee that he has been
permitted to join duty, is concerned, ‘it is not known whether the facts of that
case are similar to the present case etc.,’ and also opined that ‘the order for
rejection of the appellant/petitioner’s request for withdrawal of the
resignation letter has been passed on 14.06.2005 and the writ petition has been
filed only in the year 2007 and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of laches’ and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.
4. Admittedly, the appellant/petitioner being a Conductor of the
respondent Corporation, has submitted his letter of resignation on 21.04.2001 to
contest as an independent candidate to the Member of the Legislative Assembly at
Sedapatti Constituency and the fact remains that the respondent Transport
Corporation has accepted his resignation letter on the same day. Later, the
appellant/petitioner has changed his mind and submitted a letter dated
23.04.2001 to the respondent Corporation to withdraw his letter of resignation
dated 21.04.2001. The respondent/Transport Corporation has, at last, sent a
reply dated 14.06.2005 to the appellant/petitioner, inter alia, stating that he
has resigned his job and that his resignation has been accepted and he has been
relieved of his services and therefore, his request for re-employment cannot be
acceded to in view of the Corporation Standing Orders and as per the General
Public Services Rules.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ petitioner submits that the
appellant/petitioner has submitted his resignation letter on 21.04.2001 and has
submitted his letter of withdrawing the same by means of his letter dated
23.04.2001 itself and that there has been no response from the
respondent/Transport Corporation for several representations made through the
letters dated 30.05.2001, 06.06.2001, 07.12.2002, 13.11.2002 and 20.12.2002 and
finally, the respondent/Transport Corporation has given a reply only on
14.06.2005 rejecting the request of the appellant/petitioner and that as per
Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947, a
permanent workman who wants to leave the service has to give one month notice or
one month’s wages in lieu of notice to the employer and in the instant case,
that has not been adhered to and in regard to another employee, a conductor of
the Transport Corporation, namely, S.Vadamalaineethi, who has contested the
election and lost the same, was later on reinstated in his service and
therefore, the appellant/petitioner has been singled out and that the respondent
Transport Corporation has discriminated the appellant/ petitioner and therefore,
prays for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.3227
of 2007 and to allow the writ appeal resultantly.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit
that the resignation of the appellant/petitioner was accepted on 21.04.2001
itself and he was relieved of his duties on the same day and therefore, the
subsequent request of the appellant/petitioner to withdraw his resignation
cannot be acceded to. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge has
properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has dismissed
the writ petition and would pray to dismiss the present writ appeal.
7. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent,
we are of the view that as far as the present case is concerned, the
appellant/petitioner has submitted his resignation on 21.04.2001 and the same
has been accepted and he was relieved by the respondent Corporation on the same
day itself and therefore, the appellant/petitioner’s subsequent letter of
withdrawal of letter of resignation, dated 23.04.2001, will not be of any avail
to him for the simple reason that when once the resignation has been accepted by
the respondent competent authority, the same is final and binding on the
parties. Moreover, a perusal of Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employees
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1947, indicates that it speaks of liability of a
permanent workman to give notice before one month or give one month’s wages in
lieu of notice before voluntarily leaving service to the employer or such other
officer in this behalf and when the appellant/petitioner himself has given his
letter of resignation on 21.04.2001 and the same having been accepted on the
same day, we are of the view that the appellant/petitioner cannot seek aid of
Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Rules, 1947, by
his own conduct and therefore, he is estopped from putting forth such a plea in
the eye of law.
8. Even though the appellant/petitioner contends that he has been
discriminated, in that another employee has been provided with employment after
he contested and lost the election, it is to be pointed out, in the letter dated
14.06.2005, of the respondent Corporation addressed to the Government, it is
specifically mentioned that another employee namely, Vadamalaineethi as stated
by the appellant/petitioner in his petition, has not resigned his service and
this has been intimated to the Government. Therefore, the plea of the
appellant/petitioner in this regard fails.
9. It is not in dispute that the appellant/petitioner has submitted his
letter of resignation on 21.04.2001 which has been accepted on the same day and
the order in regard to the rejection of his request for withdrawal of his
resignation letter, has been passed on 14.06.2005 and only, in the month of
April’ 2007, he has filed the present writ petition after a long lapse of time
which has not been explained and therefore, on this score of laches also, we
opine that the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief prayed
for by him even on equity.
10. Suffice it to point out that the learned Single Judge has assigned
cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the writ petition and we opine that
the same do not require any interference by this Court.
11. In fine, for the foregoing reasons, this writ appeal fails and the
same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P(MD)No.3227 of 2007 dated 09.04.2007, is affirmed. No costs.
rsb
To
The General Manager,
Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Limited,
Madurai Division – I,
Madurai – 625 020.