Summary
The Court held that an employee’s application under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme became a concluded transaction when accepted. His request to ensure payment of service benefits did not make the offer conditional, and a later request to keep it suspended over provident-fund concerns was not withdrawal. Postponement of the relieving date did not reopen the accepted offer; the subsequent withdrawal was ineffective. Under the scheme the post stood abolished on acceptance and payment followed. The High Court relief was set aside, while the employee retained the scheme benefits already paid.
Issues
- Whether the employee’s MVRS application was conditional on advance settlement of provident-fund and other dues.
- Whether postponement of the relieving date permitted withdrawal after acceptance.
Provisions considered
- Clauses 1.6, 4.0–4.3 and 5.1, Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of National Textile CorporationThe scheme invited an employee’s offer, which management could accept or decline. Acceptance completed the transaction and simultaneously abolished the post, with terminal benefits payable thereafter rather than as a condition precedent. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45)
Held
- The application sought resignation under the scheme without fixing a future operative date. The request for all service benefits was a normal consequence of retirement, not a condition requiring prior payment. Management’s reserved choice to refuse the offer did not make it conditional. (¶¶ 6, 12, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- The March letter requesting suspension pending correction of provident-fund concerns did not withdraw the offer or create a condition precedent. The contributions had been deposited but there was confusion concerning the beneficiary description. Delay in disbursement did not reopen the accepted resignation. (¶¶ 7, 11, 32, 34, 35, 45)
- Acceptance in May concluded the transaction and abolished the post under Clause 5.1. The subsequent administrative postponement of relieving, with continued attendance, did not undo acceptance or confer a renewed withdrawal right. The July withdrawal therefore came too late. Cases involving an expressly prospective resignation or a conditional acceptance were distinguishable. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- The mill’s closure and disputed deployment of some staff elsewhere did not establish a reinstatement right. The Court did not need to decide whether failure separately to challenge the earlier acceptance communications was independently fatal. The High Court order was set aside and the employee remained entitled to the scheme benefits already paid. (¶¶ 40, 41, 43, 46, 47)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside. MVRS acceptance upheld and employee entitled to scheme benefits already paid. Parties to bear their own costs.