JUDGMENT :- (Write Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 praying to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.38507/2003 dated 3.10.2007) P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. This is a pathetic case which reflects as to how the Legal Representatives (young widow and a minor child) of the deceased-workman, who submitted his resignation on 27.9.1995 offering himself to resign with effect from 30.11.1995 was permitted to continue in service till 6.12.1995, on which day he withdrew his resignation; but, thereafter on 6.12.1995 after the working hours the Management accepted the resignation and sent it by post relieving him from service after the working hours of 6.12.1995 i.e., with effect from 7.12.1995, are dragged from pillar to post even to receive the minimum reasonable compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum, as the employee died during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The appellant-management has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 3rd October, 2007 of the learned single Judge made in Writ Petition No.38507/2003, where the appellant-management had challenged the Award dated 16.05.2003 in A.I.D. No.335/2001 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, under the following facts and circumstances of the case: 2.1) The workman submitted his resignation on 27.9.1995 to the Factory Manager of the Appellant-company, which reads: “Sir, Sub: Tendering of resignation. This is to inform you that I am tendering resignation to my service. I request you to please relieve me from my service with effect from 30.11.1995. I am very grateful to you and the Company for allowing me to render my service all these years. This letter of resignation will come into effect from 30.11.1995 onwards. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- B. Dayananda Bengre” 2.2) But, the workman was permitted to continue in service till 6.12.1995. On 6.12.1995 at about 1.30 p.m he left the place of work on personal reason. 2.3) On the same day ie., on 6.12.1995 the workman withdrew his letter of resignation offered on 27.9.1995 which reads: “Sir, Sub: Withdrawal of my resignation letter regarding. 1. I had submitted the resignation letter, requesting you to accept the same with effect from 30.11.1995 and to relieve me with effect from the said date. 2. For the best reasons known to the management, my resignation has not been accepted till today and still I am continuing in employment. 3. 1. I had submitted the resignation letter, requesting you to accept the same with effect from 30.11.1995 and to relieve me with effect from the said date. 2. For the best reasons known to the management, my resignation has not been accepted till today and still I am continuing in employment. 3. Now, I am not interested to resign to my job, which is my only source of livelihood. I am very much interested to continue in employment. Hence, this withdrawal of resignation letter. Therefore, I most respectfully request you kindly receive this withdrawal of resignation letter and not to give effect to my resignation letter and further to permit me to continue in employment in the interest of justice. This letter is sent to you by Courier, as I am not well and I am under treatment. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-“ 2.4) On the next day viz., 7.12.1995 the respondent-workman informed the appellant-management that he came on gate-pass at 1.30 p.m and as the doctor advised him to take rest for 10 days. Accordingly, enclosing a medical certificate, the workman requested for medical leave for 10 days. 2.5) The appellant-management admittedly, by letter dated 8.12.1995 acknowledged the receipt of letter of withdrawal of resignation dated 6.12.1995 on 7.12.1995; however, the management chose to inform the workman that he had been relieved on 6.12.1995 itself i.e, after closing hours of his shift. 2.6) Under this factual matrix of the case, the Tribunal rendered a finding that only on 6.12.1995 after closing hours the management had accepted the resignation letter, and that the workman withdrew his resignation letter even before receiving the communication of the acceptance of the resignation. The Labour Court held that withdrawing the resignation letter is valid, because the management relieved the workman from service only after the working hours on 6.12.1995 i.e. with effect from 7.12.1995 and before that the workman had withdraw his letter of resignation. 2.7) Based on the above finding, the Tribunal by Award dated 16.5.2003 held that the workman is entitled to continuity of service and for backwages to the extent of 50% from 7.12.1995 till he was reinstated into service, which was challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No.38507/2003. 2.7) Based on the above finding, the Tribunal by Award dated 16.5.2003 held that the workman is entitled to continuity of service and for backwages to the extent of 50% from 7.12.1995 till he was reinstated into service, which was challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No.38507/2003. 2.8) During the pendency of the said writ petition, the workman died (in 2005) and the present respondents who are L.Rs of the workman viz., young widow and a minor daughter, were brought on record. 3.1) Before the learned single Judge, the management, relying on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and Another Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in 2003-II-LLJ Supreme court 839 contended that the resignation became effective on acceptance and its non-communication did not render it inoperative. 3.2.1) On the other hand, on behalf of the workman it was contended that the Tribunal has held that the resignation was accepted only after the working hours on 6.12.1995 i.e., from 7.12.1995. It was further contended that even the management witness admitted that the resignation would come into effect only from the date on which the workman receives the communication, and therefore, resignation becomes operative only on the date of communication of acceptance of the resignation. 3.2.2) Accordingly, it was contended on behalf of the workman that while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it may not be proper for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence placed before the Tribunal and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be limited only to cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It was also brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that pending writ petition, the workman died. 4) The learned single Judge, under such facts and circumstances of the case, modified the award for payment of 50% backwages into one of payment of compensation of rupees one lakh in lumpsum, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the management. 5. We have heard Mr B.G. Surya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-management and Mr Basheer Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondents and both the counsel reiterated their respective submissions that were made before the learned single Judge. 6. 5. We have heard Mr B.G. Surya Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-management and Mr Basheer Mohammed, learned counsel for the respondents and both the counsel reiterated their respective submissions that were made before the learned single Judge. 6. There cannot be any dispute as to the well settled principle of law that the resignation becomes effective on acceptance and its non-communication does not render it inoperative, as ruled by the Apex Court in the case reported in 2003-II-LLJ Supreme Court 839 (supra) and the ratio laid down in the said decision still remains unaltered. But, in the instant case, the Tribunal, in the award dated 16.5.2003 has rendered a finding that even though the workman submitted his resignation on 27.9.1995 proposing to lay-down office from 30.11.1995, he was permitted to continue in service till 6.12.1995. On 6.12.1995 till 1.30 p.m. he worked and left the factory on gate pass and informed about the same to the office on the next day. In the meanwhile, the workman sent a letter withdrawing the resignation letter. The management accepted the resignation only after the working hours of 6.12.1995 i.e., with effect from 7.12.1995. before that, the workman had already submitted his letter withdrawing the resignation letter dated 27.9.1995. Therefore, the learned single Judge, only under such facts and circumstances, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the workman died during the pendency of the writ petition and he cannot be reinstated, modified the award for payment of 50% backwages into one for payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-in lumpsum taking a very balanced approach. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge is not in any way contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre and Another Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in 2003-II-LLJ Supreme Court 839 i.e., the resignation became effective on acceptance and its non-communication did not render it inoperative; because , in the instant case, the workman had worked till 6.12.1995 and even though he offered to resign from 6.12.1995, the workman had withdrawn his letter of resignation on the same day i.e., 6.12.1995, on which day he was working under the Management. On the other hand, the management had accepted the resignation only with effect from 7.12.1995 i.e., after the withdrawal of letter of resignation by the workman. On the other hand, the management had accepted the resignation only with effect from 7.12.1995 i.e., after the withdrawal of letter of resignation by the workman. Hence, modification of award for payment of 50% backwages to payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- by the learned single Judge, is to be held just and proper. Finding no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, appeal stands dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- 7. At the time of arguments, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited by the appellant-management in this Court as ordered by the learned single Judge and therefore, the Respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-lying in deposit.