The Karnataka State Co-op Marketing Federation Ltd. vs The Additional Registrar of Co-op Societies (C and M) and Sri. J.M. Veerabhadregowda

B.S. Patil, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant - The Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited. The Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the 1st respondent - Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore in dispute No. A(C & M)/D-7/6976/2002-03. The 2nd respondent is an employee of the petitioner-Federation. The petitioner framed a scheme governing voluntary retirement of their employees during the year 1995. The 2nd respondent submitted a representation dated 06.12.1999 to the petitioner seeking the benefit of voluntary retirement and requested that he be relieved from service granting the benefit of the scheme with effect from 31.03.2000. Before the offer of voluntary retirement was accepted, the 2nd respondent - Employee submitted representation dated 01.01.2000 making a request to the Federation to extend the period of acceptance of voluntary retirement so as to be effective from 31.10.2000. The 2nd respondent appears to have submitted one more representation on 30.03.2000 requesting the General Manager of the Federation to relieve the 2nd respondent from his duties by accepting the voluntary retirement only in case the Federation is willing to settle his terminal benefits at one go without any installments based on the representation submitted by him, with effect from 31.03.2000. This letter is produced at Annexure-C. Admittedly, there is no response by the petitioner to the representations submitted by the petitioner, particularly to Annexure-C representation dated 30.03.2000.

It is the case of the 2nd respondent - employee that he has submitted letters dated 01.03.2001 and 12.04.2001 requesting the management not to accept the offer of voluntary retirement submitted by him. Despite such representations submitted, the petitioner vide its order dated 30.04.2001 produced at Annexure-D has accepted the voluntary retirement offers made by some of the employees including the 2nd respondent herein.

Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute u/s 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore. On enquiry, the Additional Registrar vide his order dated 29.01.2007 allowed the dispute setting aside the acceptance of voluntary retirement and a direction was issued to relieve the 2nd respondent from service. The 2nd respondent was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after re-appreciation of the materials on record has confirmed the order passed by the Additional Registrar. In this background, the present writ petition is filed assailing the concurrent findings of both the Authorities below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the materials on record, I find that both the Authorities have returned concurrent findings based on evidence on the record holding that before the offer of voluntary retirement made by the 2nd respondent was accepted, the employee had withdrawn the same and therefore the order dated 30.04.2001 passed by the petitioner - Federation purporting to accept the voluntary retirement was illegal.

It is well established that if an employee before communication of the acceptance of his offer of voluntary retirement, withdraws the same, the management cannot enforce its decision by accepting the offer of voluntary retirement subsequently after its withdrawal. The Additional Registrar and the Tribunal have rightly appreciated the materials on record in coming to the conclusion that the effective date from which the acceptance comes into force is the date of communication of acceptance and if, before the said date, the employee withdraws the resignation (offer of voluntary retirement), the withdrawal will be valid and the contract of employment will not stand terminated. This position in law having been rightly appreciated, in the background of the facts, I do not find any error of law in the concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities below. The orders under challenge, therefore, do not warrant interference. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has remitted entire terminal benefits to the account of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the order dated 30.04.2001 accepting the offer of voluntary retirement made by the 2nd respondent and keeping in mind the fact that the 2nd respondent - Employee has not worked for the Federation for the last more than 13 years, back wages granted to the 2nd respondent are liable to be modified and restricted to 40%. The 2nd respondent cannot claim, as of right, full back wages for such a long period having also not chosen to refund the terminal benefits credited to his account by the petitioner federation

This writ petition is partly allowed in terms stated. The impugned order is modified. Petitioner shall reinstate the 2nd respondent with 40% back wages. The 2nd respondent - employee has to refund the terminal benefits given to him by the management within four weeks from the date of his reinstatement.