ORDER : K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. The short question is as to when the relationship of an employer and employee between the appellant-Bank and the respondent came to be terminus. The finding of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench is that it became effective only after the relieving order was issued by the Manager. Since no such relieving order was issued, she was entitled, before the order came to be passed, to withdraw the resignation. Therefore, she must be deemed to be in service. We are in agreement with the conclusion passed by the High Court. 4. Para 522(2) of the Shastry Award in Section IV indicates that in case a permanent employee desires to give up service, he is required to give one month's notice in writing to the manager. The manager shall give an order of relieving signed by him. In this case, admittedly, the relieving order had not been given by the Manager. The jural relationship of the respondent with the appellant as an employee remains undisturbed. On the other hand, it indicates that until the relieving order came to be passed by the competent authority, the employee had a right to exercise her power to withdraw the resignation. Since the withdrawal letter was written before the authority relieved her, the resignation letter stands withdrawn. With the result, the respondent continues to be in the service of the Bank. This legal position is well settled. Therefore, there is no legal flaw in the order passed by the High Court for interference. However, the respondent is not entitled to the back wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench, since she had voluntarily withdrawn from work to join her husband working at Warangal. To that extent, the order of the High Court stands set aside. In other aspects, it stands confirmed. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.