Well Nitin,
Your one line post thanking people for the input still does not give any of us the details we needed to make an informed reply.
the matter on hand concerns interpretation that involves law, facts and circumstances. Without full details, we are doing guess work. Probably this needs to be decided by a lawyer who has access to the full facts.
You still don't seem to understand what I was trying to say.
It is clear that the company was careless in not closing the probation in time. Either they didn't bother or purposely held it back, may be to deny certain benefits (at least that is how any lawyer will present before a court). When they realised that the employee may leave, they sent an email confirming the services with retrospective effect.
There is the first problem.
Retrospective confirmation can work in favour of the employee if he wants to claim benefits otherwise denied. But it does not give the company retrospective rights. From the company's perspective, it will be effective the date of the email, at best.
Under the IT Act, 2000, email is a valid mode of communication. But if you are following it up with a hard copy on letterhead, it in effect means the email was not an official communication. It then brings a lot of things into question, including the right of the HOD to provide the confirmation. In most probability, he didn't have the right. Again, only a person (consultant or lawyer) who is onsite and can see all things in proper perspective can say which is the correct interpretation.
If the employer completed the process after a lot of delay, and in a manner that looks like it was a second thought to prevent the employee from leaving. if the matter came to court, I am sure the lawyers will claim that the employee had given oral communication that he was resigning.
The other thing I said, and I will repeat.
Was the confirmation a fresh offer of contract of services with different terms and therefore has to be accepted?
or was it a confirmation of the status of contract of services already signed and in force, with the right to change the status unilaterally with the employer. Without seeing all documents like the standing orders and the actual appointment letter, it is difficult to say. However, it seems in this case, the courts are likely to take a stand averse to the employer.
If the employer had actually confirmed him on time, it would probably be a confirmation of status, but since they didn't, it means the terms were changed (by extending the probation) and therefore the confirmation after so many months, is a fresh offer that the employee has the right to accept or reject. If he was smarter, he would have dated his resignation 2 days prior to the letter.
Giving a letter saying that the confirmation is with retrospective date does not make it so. The confirmation is from the date on which the letter was actually issued.
I have a strong feeling that the 'Technical' difficulty was that the authorised signatory was not in the office and couldn't sign the document. Which would obviously mean that the person sending the Email was not authorised to do so.
In all, I think the employee is very much in his rights to complete only 1 month notice period.