JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. The petitioner Corporation has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 03.04.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 47 of 1997 by which the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent without back wages. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was working as an Assistant Traffic Inspector at the Deesa Depot of the petitioner Corporation. On 01.10.1996 the respondent tendered his resignation on the ground of ill-health and in-capacity by stating that the said resignation may be accepted after 21.10.1996 since he was on medical leave up to 21.10.1996. Accordingly, the resignation of the respondent was accepted by the competent authority w.e.f. 21.10.1996 after reverting him in the cadre of T.C from the cadre of A.T.I. Pursuant to the acceptance of the said resignation, the respondent approached the Labour Court by way of a reference contending that on account of some dispute with regard to some money transactions with the Depot Manager and on realisation of the same at a later stage, by Registered A.D letter dated 01.11.1996, he requested the petitioner to permit him to withdraw the said resignation letter. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned award with the aforesaid direction. Hence, this petition. 2. Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that after the resignation tendered by the respondent was accepted, he was paid all his retirement dues, i.e., gratuity, provident fund, etc., on 16.01.1997. Learned advocate has submitted that the Labour Court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and has granted him reinstatement in service. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award of the Labour Court is illegal and erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Mr. A.L. Sharma learned advocate for the respondent has supported the award of the Labour Court and has submitted that the Labour Court was completely justified in granting reinstatement in service to the respondent since the respondent had tendered the letter for withdrawal of the resignation before the same was accepted by the competent authority. Mr. Sharma has relied upon several decisions in the case of Yogesh Shivabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & ors., 1996(2) G.C.D. 16 (Guj)(UJ), in Purshottam A. Vadher v. Physical Research Laboratory, 2005(2) CLR. Mr. Sharma has relied upon several decisions in the case of Yogesh Shivabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & ors., 1996(2) G.C.D. 16 (Guj)(UJ), in Purshottam A. Vadher v. Physical Research Laboratory, 2005(2) CLR. 857, Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India & anr., 2000 (86) FLR 206 (SC). 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the respondent had tendered his resignation on 01.10.1996 which was accepted by the competent authority of the petitioner Corporation w.e.f. 21.11.1996 as requested by the petitioner himself. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the said acceptance, the respondent had received all his retirement dues on 16.01.1997, i.e payment towards Gratuity, Provident Fund etc,. Assuming even if the respondent had sought permission to withdraw his resignation vide letter dated 01.11.1996 before its acceptance w.e.f. 21.11.1996, then he ought not to have accepted the amounts towards his retirement dues. When all the retirement dues have been accepted by an employee, pursuant to the acceptance of his resignation, it is not open to the employee to seek withdrawal of his resignation at a later stage. Therefore, the acceptance of resignation w.e.f. 21.11.1996 has exhausted on 16.01.1997, i.e, the date on which all the retirement dues were accepted by the respondent. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the respondent that the resignation was withdrawn before the same was accepted by the competent authority is not tenable since after two and a half months from the date of the said acceptance, the workman had received all his retirement dues. Moreover, it is required to be noted that the reference in question has been preferred after almost seven months from the date of the said resignation. In my view, looking to the facts of the case it has to be presumed that the said action is an after thought which is not permissible under the law inasmuch as for the period from 21.11.1996 to 16.01.1997, the relationship of Master - Servant had ceased to exist. 5. The decisions relied upon by Mr. In my view, looking to the facts of the case it has to be presumed that the said action is an after thought which is not permissible under the law inasmuch as for the period from 21.11.1996 to 16.01.1997, the relationship of Master - Servant had ceased to exist. 5. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Sharma learned advocate for the respondent shall not apply to the case on hand, since in none of the decisions it has been held by the Court that an employee shall be permitted to withdraw his resignation after his accepting all payments towards his retirement dues. In the present case, the respondent herein has accepted all his retirement dues pursuant to the acceptance of his resignation by the competent authority of the petitioner. Thus, when all the retirement dues have been accepted by the respondent, the respondent cannot, at a later stage, seek withdrawal of his resignation. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is illegal and erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 03.04.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 47 of 1997 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.