MANSOOR AHMAD Vs. OBEROI FLIGHT CATERING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitions can be disposed of together as they lay a challenge to the common award dated 26th March, 2007. Shri Mansoor Ahmad, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 3509/2007 hereinafter referred as the workman was appointed as a Loader with the Respondent on 3rd December, 1977 on a monthly stipend of Rs. 150/ -. On 13th December, 1985 he was confirmed as Loader on a monthly salary of Rs. 312/ - only with effect from 4th September, 1978. Thereafter he was appointed as Commis III on a monthly salary of Rs. 1001/ - and he continued working there till 30th May, 1988. According to the workman in April, 1988 the Respondent/ management called upon its employees to work at hotel Madina Oberoi at Saudi Arabia. Since workman opted for the same, he was temporarily transferred to Saudi Arabia.

(2.) The workman was assured of absorption on returning back to India. However, on 20th April, 2003 when the workman was relieved from hotel Madina Oberoi at Saudi Arabia and came back to India, he was refused duty by the management. On 13th October, 2003 the workman was offered an employment at Chennai which he admittedly refused to accept. A demand notice dated 22nd October, 2003 was sent to the management for reinstatement. In view of the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Government sent a reference to the industrial adjudicator with the following terms of reference: "whether Shri Mansoor Ahmed S/o of Shri Mustaq Ahmed has abandoned his services or his services have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management and if so to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/ Government Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect -. After recording of evidence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were terminated illegally and instead of granting relief of reinstatement a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - was granted with interest @ 9 % per month from the date of award. Both the sides are aggrieved by the impugned award. According to the workman since the termination was held to be illegal and unjustified, the relief of reinstatement with back wages ought to have been granted to him, whereas the management prays that the finding of the learned Trial Court that the termination was illegal is contrary to the evidence on record and in fact it was a case of abandonment of service by the workman. Learned counsel for the workman contends that vide memo dated 30th May, 1988 when the workman was sent to Saudi Arabia, his employment with the Respondent was protected as it was assured that he would be absorbed with the Respondent on return to India in the same pay scale. The management initially stated that the workman had left the job and his employment at Saudi Arabia was a new contract and thus they were not liable to reinstate him. It was further stated that there was no suitable vacancy which stand of the management was clearly arbitrary and mala -fide. When the workman threatened them of legal consequences, he was offered a job at Chennai with a pay of Rs. 5000/ - as compared to the pay of Rs. 20,000/ - he was getting in Saudi Arabia. Since the pay of the workman was not protected, he was justified in not joining at Chennai. Further the workman was not even given the necessary position above Commis -III which he had held during the last employment.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The bone of the contention in the present case is the memorandum dated 30th May, 1988 the salient clauses whereof are reproduced as under: