Resignation – forceful or not out of free will – consideration and requirements of essential ingredients – Supreme Court of India

On 22.6.2009, the Respondent was appointed as Regional Business Head (South), in the grade of Senior Manager (B2) Sale with annual package of Rs.22 lakhs including variable pay of Rs.8.80 lakhs under the Sales Incentive Plan.   The respondent worked as Team Leader and Regional Business Head head.  The team of four Account Managers (Sales) of four South States was working under his supervision and control.

On 9.5.2011, the resignation of the respondent was accepted and he was paid the amount of Rs.5,92,538/- as full and final settlement.

After 19 months, the respondent filed petition before the Deputy Commissioner alleging forceful resignation.  On 27.6.2013, after failure of conciliation and after rejecting the contentions of the appellant that ID Act is not applicable, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act.

On 5.9.2017, the Labour Court passed the Award that the respondent failed to plead and prove that he was a workman and rejected the reference.

Forceful resignation – Resignation letter indication that it was not out of free will would not mean that it was forced on him by the Company.   Rather it can be gathered from the materials that the resignation was more out of a sense of being unfairly rated by the appellant.  It would be far-fetched for the Court to assume that the entire organisation would be against one individual and a person of such high calibre and quality who could deliver so much the Company would be forced to put in his papers.  Only because things did not turn out the way the respondent wanted them to, or for that his grievances were not adequately or appropriately addresses cannot lead to the presumption that the resignation was forced upon him by the Company.  One way to label the forced resignation would be to attribute the compulsion to the respondent, rather than factors relating to the Company and/or its managers.   In other words, it can be termed as a result of feeling suffocated due to lack of proper appreciation and not being given his rightful due that led to the chain of events to resignation, rather than by way of any arbitrariness or high-handedness on the part of the Company.

Judgment dated 2.4.2024 in Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023 of M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S.Raghavendra