Forcing Employees to Stay Is Like Bonded Labour, Says Kerala High Court

Kerala | 14 Feb 2026 The Kerala High Court has made it clear that an employer cannot force an employee to continue in service by refusing to accept a resignation. The court said that once an employee submits a resignation in line with the terms of the employment contract, the employer is duty-bound to accept it. Any refusal without valid legal grounds would amount to bonded labour, which is prohibited under the Constitution. The observation came while the court was hearing a plea filed by a company secretary working in a public sector undertaking (PSU), whose resignation was not being accepted. Justice N Nagaresh noted that if there is no breach of notice period or contract conditions, an employer cannot reject a resignation. The only exception, the court said, would be cases involving serious misconduct or financial loss where disciplinary action is genuinely required. The court clearly stated, “In any other circumstance, if the employer refuses to accept the resignation of an employee, it would amount to bonded labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.” The PSU had earlier rejected the resignation and issued show-cause notices, asking the employee to resume duty and explain why disciplinary action should not be taken. It argued that his services were essential due to the poor financial condition of the organisation. However, the court rejected this reasoning, stating that financial difficulties or emergencies cannot be used to force an employee to work against his will. It observed, “The disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner in the circumstances can only be seen as an attempt by the respondents to violate the petitioner's right to resign from service.” The court also took note of the personal hardships faced by the petitioner. It recorded that he resigned after his father’s death in 2020, leaving behind a mother suffering from neurological and psychiatric illnesses. The court observed, “The petitioner, therefore, had no other option but to search for another job.” It further noted that the PSU had not paid his salary since October 2022 and had delayed de-linking his professional membership, which affected his chances of finding new employment. Setting aside all actions taken by the PSU, the court directed it to accept the resignation and relieve the employee “as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months.” The PSU was also ordered to clear salary arrears, leave surrender benefits and other terminal dues owed to the petitioner, subject to its financial position. Forcing Employees to Stay Is Like Bonded Labour, Says Kerala High Court The Kerala High Court has ruled that an employer cannot stop an employee from leaving a job by refusing to accept a resignation. The court said that if an employee follows the rules mentioned in the appointment contract, the resignation must be accepted. Denying this right, without valid reasons, goes against the law and basic freedom at work. The court made this remark while giving relief to a company secretary of a public sector undertaking whose resignation was rejected. The employer had claimed financial problems and issued notices asking him to return to duty. The court, however, said such reasons are not enough to force someone to continue working. It clearly observed, “In any other circumstance, if the employer refuses to accept the resignation of an employee, it would amount to bonded labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.” The judges also rejected the idea of starting disciplinary action just to stop the employee from leaving. They said, “The disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner in the circumstances can only be seen as an attempt by the respondents to violate the petitioner's right to resign from service.” The court added that money troubles of an organisation cannot be used to keep someone in a job against their will. The court also took note of the employee’s personal situation, including family responsibilities and unpaid salary since 2022. It said, “The petitioner, therefore, had no other option but to search for another job.” Finally, the court directed the PSU to accept the resignation, relieve him within two months, and clear his pending salary and other legal dues.