The Supreme Court held that apparent errors in factual findings do not warrant review unless they materially alter the decision. Justice and equity may override strict contractual principles where long, unblemished service exists. Settled “no work, no pay” rule is not absolute; back-wages can be reduced proportionately without disturbing reinstatement. No review lies for re-argument.
Facts Of The Case:
Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. approached the Supreme Court by way of a review petition against the judgment dated 13th September, 2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10567 of 2024. In the original appeal, the respondent-employee, S.D. Manohara, had challenged the decision of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, which had held that he could not withdraw his resignation. The employee had tendered his resignation on 5th December, 2013, to be effective from 5th January, 2014. However, before the resignation was formally accepted, the employee submitted a letter on 26th May, 2014, withdrawing his resignation. The Corporation, on the other hand, contended that the resignation had already been accepted through an internal communication dated 15th April, 2014, which was communicated to the employee on 16th April, 2014. It was also argued by the Corporation that the employee did not report for duty on 19th May, 2014, but instead visited the office only for the purpose of completing the relieving formalities. The Supreme Court, while allowing the employee’s civil appeal, had held that the resignation stood withdrawn before its acceptance and that the employee had rendered 23 years of unblemished service. In the review petition, the Corporation pointed out these factual details as errors apparent on the face of the record.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced when the respondent-employee, S.D. Manohara, challenged the letter dated 23.06.2014, which formally rejected his withdrawal of resignation, by filing Writ Petition No. 50662/2014 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru . The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on 16.07.2019, directing his reinstatement with all benefits . Aggrieved by this decision, Konkan Railway Corporation filed Writ Appeal No. 3982 of 2019 before the Division Bench of the same High Court . The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order and allowed the employer’s appeal, holding that the resignation had been accepted with effect from 07.04.2014 and that the withdrawal submitted on 26.05.2014 was therefore invalid as it occurred after the resignation had already taken effect . Challenging this Division Bench judgment, the employee approached the Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15788 of 2021, upon which this Court issued notice on 29.10.2021 . Leave was subsequently granted, and the matter was registered as Civil Appeal No. 10567 of 2024 . The Supreme Court heard the appeal and delivered its judgment on 13.09.2024, allowing the employee’s appeal and setting aside the Division Bench’s order . Thereafter, Konkan Railway Corporation filed Review Petition (Civil) No. 2193 of 2024 before the Supreme Court seeking review of the 13.09.2024 judgment . After considering the review petition in circulation and subsequently listing it for hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition on 25.11.2025, finding no grounds to review its earlier decision
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Converts Life Imprisonment to 25 Years in POCSO Matter: Here’s Why the Court Showed Leniency
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the core issue revolved around the timing of acceptance of resignation and the validity of its subsequent withdrawal. The Court noted that the respondent-employee had submitted his resignation on 5th December, 2013, to be effective from 5th January, 2014, but unequivocally withdrew the same on 26th May, 2014. It was observed that the Corporation’s letters dated 23rd June, 2014, 1st July, 2014, and 15th July, 2014, conclusively demonstrated that the resignation was formally accepted only with effect from 1st July, 2014. Since the withdrawal occurred prior to this date, the Court held that the resignation stood validly withdrawn before its acceptance. The Court further observed that the Corporation’s internal communication dated 15th April, 2014, did not amount to formal acceptance binding on the employee, as it was not communicated to him until after the withdrawal letter was submitted. The Court also took note of the respondent’s 23 years of unblemished service and the fact that he had been litigating the matter for over a decade, indicating that there was no deliberate or conscious intention to sever the employer-employee relationship. Emphasising the principles of justice and equity, the Court observed that strict contractual interpretation of correspondence between the parties ought not to defeat the substantive rights of an employee with a long and clean service record. On the aspect of back-wages, the Court observed that while the principle of no work, no pay is a settled rule, it is not an absolute or inflexible doctrine. In the facts and circumstances, the Court found it just and equitable to grant only 50% of back-wages from 1st July, 2014, till the date of reinstatement, thereby balancing the employee’s entitlement with the employer’s legitimate expectations. The Court concluded that the errors pointed out in the review petition did not materially affect the outcome and that no case for review was made out.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, after hearing the review petition and reconsidering the matter in its entirety, ultimately dismissed Review Petition (C) No. 2193 of 2024 filed by Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. The Court held that no case had been made out for reviewing its judgment dated 13th September, 2024. It reaffirmed its earlier findings that the respondent-employee had validly withdrawn his resignation on 26th May, 2014, prior to its formal acceptance by the Corporation with effect from 1st July, 2014. The Court further held that the alleged errors pointed out by the petitioner, including the nature of the internal departmental communication and the employee’s presence at the office on 19th May, 2014, did not have the effect of altering the fundamental conclusion arrived at in the original judgment. Emphasising that justice and equity weighed in favour of the employee who had rendered 23 years of unblemished service and had been litigating for over a decade, the Court declined to interfere with its direction granting 50% back-wages from 1st July, 2014, until the date of reinstatement. The Court clarified that review jurisdiction is not meant for re-argument of the case, and the mere possibility of a different view does not warrant review. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment was delivered by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha at New Delhi on November 25, 2025.
Case Details:
Case Title: Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. S.D. Manohara Citation: 2025 INSC 1368 Civil Appeal No.: 10567 of 2024 Date of Judgment: November 25, 2025 Judge/Justice Name: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha