In another development that has left the internet stunned, the Kerala High Court recently had to intervene in a private entity’s operations to prevent the firm from making ‘an employee work against his will after submitting a resignation’.
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that preventing an employee from leaving a company after they have resigned constitutes “bonded labour” and criticised the company in question for engaging in such a practice.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who heard the case on Tuesday, noted that the right to quit a job is a fundamental part of personal liberty and directed Ernakulum-based Traco Cable Company Limited to accept the resignation of the aggrieved employee.
On what grounds was the resignation denied?
The ruling came during a hearing involving a Company Secretary (CS) who was being made to work against his will by the employer. As per the petition filed by the ex-company secretary, Traco Cable Company Limited had refused to accept the petitioner’s resignation, citing a financial emergency.
When the petitioner had approached to leave the organisation, they had denied his resignation, stating that it was ‘cruel’ of the employee to leave at the time considering its present critical financial position, without a proper substitute. The petitioner was directed to resume duties immediately.
Following this response, the company had also asked the petitioner to give an explanation in writing as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him.
What did Kerala HC say?
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled that financial issues or a financial emergency cannot be a reason to force a Company Secretary to work for an incorporated company against his will and without his consent.
Furthermore, the court also noted that the ‘disciplinary proceedings’ initiated by the company against the ex-employee for ‘not working’ equate to a violation of the fundamental rights of the former employee.
The disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner in the circumstances can only be seen as an attempt by the respondents to violate the right of the petitioner to resign from service,” the court held in its order dated February 13.
Case Background: Why couldn’t the employee just walk off?
The petitioner, a qualified Company Secretary, had submitted his resignation to a private firm. Despite serving his notice, the company reportedly refused to accept the resignation or provide the necessary relieving documents.
Without getting his official release papers, the employee was not able to pursue his search for better opportunities. According to a report by The Indian Express, the company in question had also defaulted on payment of salary for the employee for a long period, citing a financial crisis.
As per the report, the employee had resigned from the company to look for better opportunities and take care of his ailing mother.
When can employers legally refuse to accept resignation?
While the court had mandated that the company to accept the resignation notice in this case, there are specific legal frameworks where an employer can validly delay or refuse the formal “acceptance” of a resignation. Some of these exceptional cases as outlined by The Indian Express, have been listed below for the reader’s convenience.
Pending Disciplinary Proceedings: If an employee is under investigation for financial fraud, misconduct, or breach of policy, the employer can refuse to accept the resignation until the inquiry is complete.
Notice Period Non-Compliance: An employer can insist that the employee serve the contractually mandated notice period or pay “salary instead of notice.” If such a clause has been embedded in the employment contract in question.
Contractual Bonds: In cases where an employee has signed a training bond or an indemnity bond for a specific period, the employer may seek legal recourse or financial recovery before releasing them.
Resignations can also be delayed by employers if they have not been filed as per the code mentioned in the employment contract. However, even in these cases, the employer cannot physically force the employee to work; they can only withhold benefits, experience certificates, or pursue civil damages.