DINESH SINGH Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of judgment dated 1.2.1995 of National Industrial Tribunal at Bombay.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that the petitioner was working as a Junior Operator with Respondent No. 1. On 7th October, 1989 he was on tractor duty in the Make-up area and was to attend the Saudia Flight which was scheduled to arrive at 6.00 p.m. One Mr. M.L.Kumar, Apron Supervisor of the same flight was also on duty. The petitioner's tractor dashed against a chain of Container Dollies, which were parked there. Mr. Kumar reprimanded him for his careless driving and petitioner entered into heated argument with him. Subsequently, petitioner entered into the office of shift clerk and misbehaved with Mr. Kumar. He was suspected to be under the influence of alcohol. The management of respondent Air India served following charge-sheet on the petitioner:

(3.) Petitioner denied the charges. The respondent No. 1 constituted an Enquiry Committee comprising of Mr. N.S.Shetgeri arid Mr. M.L.Bhoumik and asked the committee to enquire into the incident and give its report. The Enquiry Committee after considering the entire evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of charges of leaving the appointed place of work during working hours without permission as well as of the charges of acts subversive of discipline as contained in the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report and the past conduct of the petitioner imposed a penalty of dismissal from service. An application under Section 33 (2)(b) was made to the National Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action of the dismissal. The Tribunal considered the entire proceedings of Enquiry Committee and came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the charges proved against the delinquent and allowed the application under Section 33 (2)(b).