Read Time: 09 minutes
Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Limited (HURL) submitted that the sole reason for revoking the petitioner’s joining was his not being relieved by his previous employer and that the petitioner’s merit or credentials were not in question, as he was a candidate selected by the respondent.
Reaffirming the rights of employees, the Delhi High Court has recently held that 'the new employer cannot revoke an employment offer if the employee is formally relieved by the previous employer'.
The Bench, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, was dealing with a writ petition, wherein the petitioner was challenging revocation from the post of Vice President (Finance) by Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan (HURL). The said revocation was on the ground that the petitioner was not relieved by his previous employer, Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL), within 30 days.
In view of this, the court opined that "the revocation was solely due to the employee's inability to provide a relieving letter from BVFCL within 30 days. Now that the petitioner has been formally relieved the petitioner, such grounds for revocation no longer exist. Therefore, the respondent (HURL) should reinstate the employee, who was duly selected".
According to the facts of the case, the petitioner joined BVFCL as General Manager (Finance). However, HURL issued an advertisement inviting applications for various posts, including the position of Vice President (Finance), for which the petitioner applied. After being selected, the petitioner was offered the appointment for the post of Vice President (Finance).
Upon receiving the letter, the petitioner tendered his resignation to BVFCL on the same day, requesting to be relieved within 15 days as he was still on probation and was not required to serve any notice before being relieved. Following this, the petitioner's resignation letter was forwarded to the HR Department. However, instead of accepting the resignation and relieving the petitioner, the department issued a memorandum confirming his service retroactively.
In an attempt to move things forward, the petitioner sent a letter to BVFCL agreeing to serve a month notice period or, in the alternative, the petitioner asked the respondent to adjust his balance notice period against his casual/leave balance to be recovered from his final settlement amount.
On BVFCL being unresponsive to the said letter, the petitioner joined HURL (the new employer) with an undertaking to submit his relieving letter from BVFCL within 30 days. However, instead of processing the said resignation, BVFCL issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for joining the new employer without a formal release.
Aggrieved with the notice issued by BVFCL, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court, and the court accordingly stayed any further proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice. The Court observed that the pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for processing and finalizing the resignation offered by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, HURL unilaterally and without hearing, revoked the petitioner and decided to initiate a fresh process for filling up the post in question.
To bolster the arguments of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Anupam Lal Das submitted that since the relieving letter was issued by BVFCL, the petitioner should be permitted to rejoin the post of Vice President (Finance) with the respondent, as that was the sole ground for revocation.
Acknowledging that the sole reason for revoking the petitioner’s joining was his not being relieved by BVFCL, Advocate Praveen Kumar Singh, appearing for Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Limited (HURL), submitted that the respondent did not initiate a fresh process to fill the said vacancy. It was further submitted that the post of Vice President (Finance) was lying vacant and that the petitioner’s merit or credentials were not in question, as he was a candidate selected by the respondent.
Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the court accordingly held, "In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2024. Respondent shall permit the Petitioner to join back on the post of Vice President (Finance) within a period of one week from today with all consequential benefits, in accordance with law."
Case Title: MATTHEW JOHNSON DARA V HINDUSTAN URVARAK AND RASAYAN LTD (W.P.(C) 11818/2024)
Petitioner: Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Senior Advocate with Mr. Punit D. Tyagi and Mr. Abhishek Mehra, Advocates.
Respondent: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh and Mr. Md. Ziauddin Ahmad, Advocates
Please Login or Register
