UP AIRWAYS LTD. Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 19.01.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court-II (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in I.D. No.18/1999, wherein the Tribunal held that the service of the respondent was illegally terminated by the management and thereby granted a relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages with continuity of service and all other benefits to him.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts as emerging from the petition are that on 13.04.1995 the respondent was appointed as the Senior Commander with the petitioner company on a pay scale of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) per month (Rs.95,000/- basic + Rs.5,000/- HRA). The primary job of respondent was to act as Chief of Operations and he was suppose to supervise, plan, conduct and manage flight operations. On 27.02.1996 the respondent was also asked to function as an examiner in order to examine and supervise other pilots including co-pilots while performing his duties on behalf of the petitioner company. The petitioner company, since suffering from financial crunches, issued a memo dated 23.09.1996 to its employees highlighting that the company had surplus Commander and Co-Pilots. Since the second aircraft owned by the company was not functional and was grounded, it was decided, in consultation with all the Commanders and Co-Pilots to reduce the salary of the employees till the time the second aircraft became operational and the airlines recovered from financial difficulties. The respondent was party to this agreement.

(3.) The respondent vide letter dated 20.07.1997 demanded payment of arrears of his salary and perks from the petitioner. In the said letter the respondent admitted that he had joined the petitioner company as an Examiner as well as Chief of Operations w.e.f. 01.06.1995. Despite the fact that the company was not able to recover from financial difficulty and despite being fully aware of the fact that an aircraft was scheduled to fly on 22.07.1997 and the passengers were bound to fly from Mumbai to Delhi, respondent along with other Pilots went on a flash strike thereby refusing to fly the scheduled aircraft. Furthermore, respondent refused to fly for the petitioner airlines in future also. Since, the act of respondent amounted to misconduct for which a disciplinary action is provided under the Company's Regulations, respondent was terminated from services of the petitioner company w.e.f. 23.07.1997.