And from other perspective; while courts agree that resignation was force resignation..
Delhi District Court
Id No. 340/11 Munni Lal vs . M/S Uso International Pvt. Ltd. ... on 11 August, 2014
24 Further on perusal of resignation letter, I found that same is computerized typed letter and bears signature of workman. In the said letter it is written that "he will not go to labour court and will not file any complaint against USO office or General Secretary." Thus it is evident that contents of letters has been drafted by management official and workman singed under duress otherwise why he would written that he would not approach to labour court or file complaint against official of management. On perusal of the WS and testimony of MW2 also it is evident that workman if at all given resignation then same ID No. 340/11 Munni Lal Vs. M/s USO International Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 22 out of 28 was given due to threat of criminal action to be taken against him. I do not see the act of workman knocking the door of Ms. Alleyamma Jain was such an heinous act that workman would voluntarily resigned from service. Therefore even if workman was pressurized to resign under the pretext of taking criminal action against him exercising of said pressure was itself illegal. Hence in these circumstances on the face itself it can be said that workman resignation was not volunteered. Hence, I held he was terminated illegally by management in violation of provision of section 25F I.D. Act. Issue no.2 decided against the management.
Delhi District Court
Mr. Mohit Chaurasia vs M/S. Hotspot Retails Limited on 31 July, 2012
29.It is also relevant to know that DW1 has, in his cross examination, revealed that during February, 2009, 5 to 6 employees used to resign every day. The large number of employees resigning from the company also suggests that there were external factors which had propelled the employees to resign.
36.Moreover, the letter dated 17.02.09 Ex. PW1/D adds strengths to the version of the plaintiff that he was forced to resign under threat of forfeiture of emoluments. Had the plaintiff voluntarily resigned and with immediate effect, the plaintiff would not be entitled to even basic salary for three months and the defendant would not have undertaken to pay the same. The very fact that the defendant no. 2 has been willing to pay basic salary for three months indicates that the plaintiff had not voluntarily resigned but had been forced to tender his resignation. From the above, it is clear that the plaintiff had been compelled to resign. Hence, the defendant no. 2 ought to pay to the plaintiff his gross salary for the notice period i.e. three months.
62.The plaintiff has prayed for performance linked incentive for his performance during a period of one year prior to the termination of employment. The basis of this claim is the satisfactory performance of the plaintiff.
67.It has also been noted above that the plaintiff had not voluntarily resigned but have been forced to resign.
Karnataka High Court
Rajesh Korat vs Management Innoviti Embedded on 21 April, 2017