JUDGMENT : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. 1. The present intra court appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, being aggrieved by the order dated 20-12-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12734/2016 (Mukesh Singh Vs. District Manager, Food Corporation of India), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The appellant filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the award dated 14-07-2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, whereby the reference of the industrial dispute as to "whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in not considering the request of Mukesh Singh S/o. Shri Hindu Singh for reinstatement in service is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?" has been answered against the appellant. 3. The facts giving rise to the dispute briefly are that the appellant employed as Messenger with the Food Corporation of India. On 16-01-1989, the appellant tendered his resignation with a request that the same be effective from 18-04-1989. The reason which was mentioned for resignation was "adverse domestic circumstance/affair". On receipt of the resignation letter, the competent authority, District Manager having found that there were dues to the tune of Rs. 3400/- informed the appellant vide communication dated 06-02-1989 to deposit the amount and only thereafter his resignation will be accepted. The appellant availed earned leave from 27-03-1989 to 12-04-1989, thereafter joined on 13-04-1989 and in pursuance to communication dated 06-02-1989, deposited the dues with interest vide money receipt No. 756 dated 17-04-1989. The resignation tendered by the appellant was accepted on 17-04-1989. 4. The appellant vide representation dated 16-11-1989 addressed to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bhopal informed that he tendered his resignation without thought and since the domestic condition has now improved sought for withdrawal of the same and requested for reinstatement. The said representation was rejected on the ground that since the resignation was already accepted on 17-04-1989 and therefore, the same cannot be withdrawn. The appellant was communicated vide communication dated 26-06-1990 which was duly acknowledged by him on 27-06-1990. The said representation was rejected on the ground that since the resignation was already accepted on 17-04-1989 and therefore, the same cannot be withdrawn. The appellant was communicated vide communication dated 26-06-1990 which was duly acknowledged by him on 27-06-1990. Rejection of the representation led the appellant to raise a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, wherein it was contended by the appellant that the resignation tendered by him on 16-01-1989 was withdrawn vide letter dated 27-03-1989, which was sent through under certificate of posting. It was stated that he availed earned leave from 27-03-1989 to 12-04-1989 which was sanctioned by the Management. Thereafter, he joined on 13-04-1989 and worked till 17-04-1989 when his resignation was accepted. It was contended that the action of the Management in accepting the resignation on 17-04-1989 was illegal as the appellant had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance on 27-03-1989. 5. Upon failure in conciliation, the dispute was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication vide notification dated 22-06-2004. Before the Labour Court the appellant workman reiterated the stand taken in conciliation that the resignation letter having been withdrawn on 27-03-1989 through a letter under certificate of posting the respondent employer was not justified in accepting the resignation on 17-04-1989. The respondent on its turn reiterated that the application for withdrawal was given on 16-11-1989 much after the acceptance on 17-04-1989 and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for reinstatement. 6. The Labour Court referred the oral evidence of the appellant wherein he has stated in cross examination on 06-02-1989 that he received a letter from the management that there was outstanding dues of Rs. 3400/- in his name and the resignation would be accepted only after payment of dues. He stated that he joined on 13-04-1989 and deposited the dues of Rs. 3550/- on 17-04-1989 and got money receipt No. 756. He has further stated that he told to accept his resignation letter and as such his resignation was accepted on the same day. This shows that the resignation was accepted with the consent of the appellant. 7. This evidence make it clear that the appellant was willing to resign, as in furtherance to the communication dated 06-02-1989 whereby the appellant was called upon to deposit certain amount of Rs. 3400/- on 17-04-1989 failing which his resignation was to be declined. This shows that the resignation was accepted with the consent of the appellant. 7. This evidence make it clear that the appellant was willing to resign, as in furtherance to the communication dated 06-02-1989 whereby the appellant was called upon to deposit certain amount of Rs. 3400/- on 17-04-1989 failing which his resignation was to be declined. Regulation 21(2) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1971 stipulates that resignation may be accepted by the appointing authority with immediate effect or at any time before the expiry of the period of notice in which case an employee shall be paid pay in respect of unexpired period of notice given to him. In case a shorter period of notice is accepted at the request of an employee, he shall be entitled to receive his pay and allowances only in respect of actual period spent on duty in the Corporation. Thus, it was within the discretion of the competent authority to have accepted the resignation even before the expiry of notice period. The contention of the appellant regarding letter dated 27-03-1989 sent through under certificate of posting was found to be suspicious and the withdrawal document dated 27-03-1989 was disputed. Under Certificate Posting (UPC) is not a recognized mode of communication. 8. The Tribunal after considering the entire facts and evidence held that it would not be reliable that the withdrawal application was sent for withdrawing the resignation letter after acceptance. On the contrary, the management has filed copy of the letter dated 06-02-1989 of the District Manager which was marked as Exv. M/4, wherein it was informed to the appellant to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs. 3400/- and only then his resignation would be accepted. Again a reminder dated 13-04-1989, which was marked as Ex. M/5 was sent to him. This letter was accepted by the appellant. In compliance to the said letter, the appellant deposited the outstanding amount. These letters and its acceptance itself show that no withdrawal application was existing at the time of acceptance of the resignation. 9. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have recorded the finding on the basis of material on record and in absence of cogent material that the letter dated 27-03-1989 was duly served on the respondent, the finding cannot be interfered in a intra court appeal. 10. 9. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have recorded the finding on the basis of material on record and in absence of cogent material that the letter dated 27-03-1989 was duly served on the respondent, the finding cannot be interfered in a intra court appeal. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting any interference in the intra court appeal. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.