AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED AND ORS. versus CAPT. GURDARSHAN KAUR SANDHU

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 980 · Decided: 22-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED AND ORS.
v.
CAPT. GURDARSHAN KAUR SANDHU
(Civil Appeal No.6567 of 2019)
AUGUST 22, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
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could be withdrawn by her before she was actually relieved from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
[2019] 12  S.C.R. 980
980
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
981
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
AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED v.  CAPT. GURDARSHAN
KAUR SANDHU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
and flying training and to undertake skill test 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.