Manohara Vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors., 2024 INSC 693

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Manohara Vs. Konkan...

The case involves a service dispute between S.D. Manohara (appellant) and Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors. (respondents). The core issue is whether the appellant withdrew his resignation before its acceptance by the employer. The appellant tendered his resignation on 05.12.2013, which was allegedly accepted by the respondent on 15.04.2014, effective from 07.04.2014. However, the appellant contended that he withdrew his resignation on 26.05.2014, before it was formally accepted. The Supreme Court found that the resignation was indeed withdrawn before its acceptance, as the letter dated 15.04.2014 was an internal communication and not served to the appellant.

 The Court noted that the appellant continued to work and was in communication with the respondent, indicating no finality to the resignation. The Court allowed the appeal, directing the reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back pay for the period he was relieved from service. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka was set aside.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Police must undertake a preliminary enquiry under section 173 (3) in cases where complaint doesn’t constitute a cognizable offencepunishable with more than 3 years.

In the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 410, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against the appellant, a Rajya Sabha MP, for reciting… Read more »

H Siddaraju & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors

In H Siddaraju & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2023), the Karnataka High Court addressed a challenge to Sections 4(iii)(c)(I) and 2(1)(zg) of the Surrogacy (Regulation)… Read more »

Supreme Court: No State-Specific Domicile in India, Strikes Down Domicile-Based PG Medical Reservations

In Tanvi Behl & Shrey Goel v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Article 5 of the Indian Constitution, all Indians… Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.