K. A. SWAMI, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the management against the order dated 14 6-1984 passed by the learned Single judge in W. P. No. 12222/1979. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has quashed the award of the Labour Court, mysore dated 18-11-1978 made in Ref. No. 133/1978 and has further held that the 1st respondent (petitioner in W. P. 12222/79) shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages to the extent of 75% of the wages which he would have drawn had he been continued in service. The appellant has also been further directed to call upon the 1st respondent within one month from the date of the order to join duty by giving him 15 days time to do so. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent was an employee of the appellant. He tendered his resignation to the post held by him on 23rd August 1969 with a request to relieve him from his duties from 22nd Sep. 1969. The Manager of the appellant- management accepted the resignation on the sameday (23-8-1969) and intimated the order of acceptance to the 1st respondent. The letter of resignation and the letter of acceptance of resignation are produced as exhibits M. 3 and M. 4 before the Labour court. After the acceptance of the resignation but before 22nd September 1969, the 1st respondent sent a letter dated 2nd September 1969 withdrawing his resignation. The appellant-management refused to accept the letter of withdrawal on the ground that it had already accepted his resignation. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Government of Karnataka by their Order No. FCL 600 LLD 70 dated 29th December 1970 referred the following points of dispute for determination by the Labour Court, Mysore :"1. Is the Management of M/s. Kushalnagar Works, Kudige justified : a) In accepting the resignation of sri P. Nagaraju, ex-employee of the said management as voluntary and if so ; b) In not permitting him to withdraw his resignation before he was actually received ? 2. If not, to what relief the above workman is entitled ?" having regard to the contentions urged before the Labour Court, the following additional issues were framed by the labour Court : 1. 2. If not, to what relief the above workman is entitled ?" having regard to the contentions urged before the Labour Court, the following additional issues were framed by the labour Court : 1. Is the dispute referred not an industrial dispute and so that the court does not have jurisdiction ? 2. Did Sri P. Nagaraj, an employee of Kushalnagar Works, Kudige, tender his resignation of service ? 3. Is the management of Kushalnagar works justified in accepting the resignation as voluntary ? ( 4 ) IS the said Management justified in not permitting Sri P. Nagaraju to withdraw his resignation before he was actually relieved ? ( 5 ) IS the workman Sri P. Nagsraju entitled to any, and if so what relief ? the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the resignation was tendered voluntarily and it was not permissible to withdraw it after the same was accepted by the Management. Accordingly it dismissed the reference on 18-11-1978 in Ref. No. 133/1978. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the respondent preferred W. P. No. 12222/1979 before this Court. As already pointed out, the learned Single judge by the order dated 14-6-1984 has allowed the writ petition and issued directions in terms as already noticed. The learned Single Judge has held that it was open to the 1st respondent to withdraw the resignation at any time before 22nd September 1969. It was further held that in a case where the resignation tendered was to become effective with effect from a future date, the employee who had tendered resignation had a right to withdraw the resignation before it became effective and he went out of employment. In support of the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra misra (A. I. R. 1978 S C. 694) 5. In this appeal, the learned Senior counsel Sri P. K. Kurian, has contended that when once the resignation was accepted, even though it was to be effective from a prospective date, it was not open to the employee to withdraw it and on acceptance of the resignation, the employee lost his right to withdraw it. In this appeal, the learned Senior counsel Sri P. K. Kurian, has contended that when once the resignation was accepted, even though it was to be effective from a prospective date, it was not open to the employee to withdraw it and on acceptance of the resignation, the employee lost his right to withdraw it. In support of this submission, the learned senior Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Kasilingam v. P. S. G College of Technology (A. I R. 1981 S. C. 789 ). A specific emphasis was laid on the following observations contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment :"it may be conceded that it is open to a servant to make his resignation operative from a future date and to withdraw such resignation before its acceptance. "on the basis of the aforesaid observation, it was contended that once the resignation was accepted, it was not open to the employee to withdraw it. ( 6 ) IN that case, a Lecturer had tendered his resignation. The State Govt, held that the resignation was involuntary. Therefore, acceptance of the resignation was ineffective and hence the petitioner therein continued in service. The High court reversed that finding and held that the resignation was voluntary. The supreme Court took the view that it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the finding of fact in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore the decision of the High Court required to be reversed. In para 12, it is observed thus ;"it is clear beyond doubt that the high Court had transgressed its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution by entering upon the merits of the controversity by embarking upon an enquiry into the facts as to whether or not the letter of resignation submitted by the appellant was voluntary. The question at issue as to whether the resignation was voluntary was a matter of inference to be drawn from other facts. The question involved was essentially one of fact. It cannot be questioned that the Government undoubtedly had the jurisdiction to draw its own conclusions upon the material before it. The question at issue as to whether the resignation was voluntary was a matter of inference to be drawn from other facts. The question involved was essentially one of fact. It cannot be questioned that the Government undoubtedly had the jurisdiction to draw its own conclusions upon the material before it. " thereafter it was observed thus : "in the view that we take of the case, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant based on the majority decision in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 3 SCR 12 : air 1978 SC 694 ) does not really arise. "after thus observing that the contention urged on the basis of the decision in gopal Chandra Misra's case does not arise, the Supreme Court has referred to the contention that it is open to a civil servant to tender his resignation on a prior date to take effect on a subsequent date specified and therefore it could always be withdrawn before the expiry of such date; and has further held thus :"there can be no dispute with the proposition but the decision on which reliance is placed is clearly distinguishable on facts. "thus in Kasilingam's case also the supreme Court has held in unequivocal terms that the resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective; in other words, before the expiry of the date specified in the letter of resignation on which the resignation has to take effect. The observation made in the latter portion of the very paragraph 13 of the decision in Kasilingam's case on which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants has to be understood in the light of the aforesaid unequivocal enunciation made on the very topic. The latter observation that "it is open to a civil servant to make his resignation operative from a future date and to withdraw it before it is accepted" also does not take away the effect of the enunciation made in the earlier portion of the very paragraph that it is open to a civil servant to withdraw 'the resignation before it takes effect. ' the resignation tendered on a prior date to take effect on a subsequent date specified therein, even if it is accepted before the expiry of the date on which it has to take effect, does not put an end to the service and will not have the effect of putting the civil servant or an employee out of service or employment. The acceptance of the resignation before the expiry of the date specified in the letter of resignation on which the resignation has to take effect, does not and cannot affect the right of the civif servant or an employee to withdraw it before the specified date. Until the specified date expires the resignation will be in inchoate state. Therefore, the acceptance of such resignation can be effective only on the expiry of the date mentioned in the letter of resignation on which date it has to take effect. That being so, even when the acceptance may be earlier to that date, it takes effect only on the date specified in the letter of resignation on which date the resignation has to take effect. If that be so, the latter observation contained in paragraph 13 of the decision in Kasilingam's case (AIR 1981 S. C. 789) only means that even though the acceptance of the resignation may be prior to the date mentioned in the letter of resignation on which the resignation has to take effect, suchacceptance can be effective only after the expiry of the date mentioned in the letter of resignation. It also further follows that such resignation can be withdrawn before the expiry of the date specified in the letter of resignation on which date the resignation has to take effect irrespective of the fact whether such resignation is accepted by the concerned authority before the expiry of the date on which the resignation has to take effect. ( 7 ) THE same view is again reiterated by the Supreme Court, though without referring to Kasilingam's case (AIR 1981 s. C. 789) in Balram Gupta v. Union of india ( AIR 1987 SC 2354 ). That was a case in which an official tendered his resignation on 24th December 1980. The letter of resignation read as follows :"i beg to seek voluntary retirement on 31-3-1981. I had joined government service on 4th August 1958, thus i have completed more than 20 years service. That was a case in which an official tendered his resignation on 24th December 1980. The letter of resignation read as follows :"i beg to seek voluntary retirement on 31-3-1981. I had joined government service on 4th August 1958, thus i have completed more than 20 years service. My notice period may please be treated w. e. f. 1-1-1981. "this letter of resignation was accepted or) 20th January 1981 and the official was allowed to retire from the service prospectively with effect from the afternoon of 31st March 1981. The order accepting the resignation read as follows :"shri Bal Ram Gupta, permanent upper Division Clerk and Officiating accountant in the Photo Division is allowed to retire voluntarily with effect from the afternoon of 31st March 1981 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs, department of Personnel and Administrative reforms O. M. No. 25013/7/77 estt. (A) dated 26th August 1977. "after the communication of the order of acceptance, the official by his letter dated 31st January 1981 withdrew the resignation. As the rules governing the service provided that the withdrawal of resignation should be with the approval of the authority, the authority concerned refused to approve the withdrawal letter. The supreme Court held that until 31st March 1981 it was open to the official to withdraw his resignation on any date and withholding of the approval for withdrawal of resignation, was unjustified. 7. 1. It was also contended in Balram Gupta's case that a Government servant was not entitled to demand as of tight, permission to withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement but it could only be given as a matter of grace. Reliance was also placed on the observations made by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v Union of India (A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 180 ). With reference to this argument, the Supreme court observed thus:"there the court reiterated that till the resignation was accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the accep- tance, the public servant concerned has locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation had not been accepted. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation had not been accepted. But in the facts of the instant case the resignation from the government servant was to take effect ft a subsequent date prospectively and the withdrawal was long before that date. Therefore, the appellant, in our opinion, had locus. " (Emphasis supplied) 7. 2. In our view the decision in balram Gupta's case is applicable on all fours to the case on hand. ( 8 ) IN addition to this, a Division bench of this Court in K. R. Raghuveer v. Vijaya Bank [1986 (2) Kar. L. J. 266 (DB) : i. L. R. 1986 Kar. 3141] has also expressed the same view and approved the decision under appeal and followed it. Therefore, we are of the view that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge that the refusal to permit withdrawal of resignation is unjustified and that on the withdrawal of resignation he continued to be in service, is correct and does not call for interference. ( 9 ) IN the view we take, all other contentions are left open. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .