When an employee tenders his resignation effective from a future date with the willingness to serve the entire notice period so stipulated in the contract of employment, virtually it is an offer made by the employee. When the employer accepts the offer as it is, he has to keep him in employment till the expiry of the entire notice period and only then relieve him. So far so good in respect of the offer and acceptance of both the parties. But when the employer accepts the resignation with immediate effect and relieves the employee without allowing him to serve the entire notice period stipulated, it amounts to a counter-offer which requires the acceptance of the employee concerned. The issuance of notice of foreclosure of a contract of employment as per the terms of contract is not a mere empty formality but an opportunity to get both of them prepared for the hardships, if any likely to be created by the foreclosure. In other words, it allows the employer some time to find out a suitable substitute for the position resigned and the exiting employee keeps himself employed till the effective date of termination in future. In the event of the employee's non-acceptance of the counter-offer by the employer as per his unilateral choice, to give immediate and instantaneous effect to his choice, the employer should compensate the employee only by paying the notice salary. Otherwise it will tantamount to breach of the notice clause of the contract of employment that would result in paying unliquidated damages if contested in a Court of Law. This is the legal position of modification of the notice period by the employer contrary to the offer of the resigning employee to serve it in full.
However, unfortunately, the post is silent about the status or position of the job held by him under the ex-employer i.e., whether the capacity of his employment was managerial/administrative or supervisory with a salary of Rs.10000/=p.m or above or that of a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. This is a vital information based on which only, the course of remedial action can be suggested to the aggrieved employee.
If the poster belonged to either of the first two categories mentioned above, he has to institute only a Civil Suit for recovery.
If he was a workman, he can file a claim u/s 33-C(1) of the ID Act,1947 to the appropriate Government i.e the Secretary to Govt, Labor Department.
OR
If his monthly salary was not exceeding 24000/= irrespective of the position held by him, he can file a claim u/s 15(1) of the Payment of Wages Act,1936 to the authority under the Act i.e., normally, the Deputy Labor Commissioner for the area where the establishment is.