JETLITE INDIA LTD Vs. CAPT R KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two separate writ petitions one filed by jetlite (India) Ltd. in WP (C) No. 9066/2007 seeking writ of certiorari or any other writ to quash the Award dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the writ petition filed by Captain R. Khosla in CWP 8284/2004 seeking modification of the said order dated 30th August, 2007 seeking interest @ 18% per annum w. e. f. 16. 7. 1998 till the time of full and final payment on the claimed amount of Rs. 4,38,799a.

(2.) BRIEF facts in nutshell as per WP (C) No. 9066/2007, relevant for deciding the present petitions are as under:-That the respondent Captain R. Khosla was appointed as Pilot in the sahara Airlines on 1. 11. 1994. The job of the Pilot in an Airline is one of control and it requires initiative and creativeness and faculty of mind. It is managerial and supervisory in nature. The respondent was getting a very handsome salary of more than Rs. 1 lac per month. As per the management, the respondent was very arrogant, foul mouth and undisciplined person. The job of a pilot by the very nature of its responsibility and risk involved requires regimentary discipline. Any deviation or act of insubordination may not only cause loss of crores of Rupees but also lives of hundreds of persons. The respondent used to abuse and speak unparliamentary words about his seniors and colleagues in front of every body. He used to act rudely and was insubordinate in his behavior towards his seniors. When his rude behavior and use of abusive language went out of hand, the management was forced to serve him with a show cause notice on 5th June, 98 from G. M. Operation, north, and he was asked to show cause within seven days as to why strict disciplinary action should not be taken against him. That on 25th June, 1998 the respondent submitted his show cause. The very tone and tenure of the show cause smacks of insubordination and rudeness towards the senior officers and management of Airline. That the show cause given by the respondent was found to be insufficient and the Chief Controller Sh U. K. Bose by letter dated 2. 7. 1998 directed to hold an inquiry to look into the said charges as given in the charge sheet. The inquiry was directed to be completed within 15 days. On the basis of the statements and cross-examination of the witnesses, non-denial of any of the allegations by the respondent, the committee came to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent on all the three counts of using unparliamentarily language were proved. That on the basis of the report of the inquiry, on July 16,1998, a letter was issued to the respondent intimating him the decision of the management to terminate his services with immediate effect. Against this letter, Captain Khosla went to the Accounts Department and got his accounts settled. However, when he was informed that as per his terms of appointment he has to be given one months salary in lieu of the notice period, he refused to take that amount, thereafter the respondent did nothing in this regard. After almost one year of the termination on 1. 7. 1999 Mr. Khosla sent an application to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi as an application for conciliation/reference to labour Court or Tribunal under Industrial Disputes act, 1947. He referred to non-payment of one month salary in lieu of non-issue of requisite notice and raised certain demands about his arrears. That on the basis of the jurisdictional question raised by the petitioner a reference was made by the Government vide letter dated 27. 1. 2000 and letter No. L-11012/119/99-IR. Thereafter the hearing was completed and the award was passed on 13. 2. 2006.

(3.) MR. Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi counsel appearing for the Jetlite (India)Limited at the outset has stated that the order passed by the learned tribunal is without jurisdiction as the respondent Caption R. Khosla was appointed in Sahara Airlines on the post of Pilot and as per the definition of workman envisaged under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the respondent cannot be held to be a workman. Counsel has further drawn attention of this Court to order dated 9. 9. 2008 passed by this Court in CWP no. 9135/2006 filed by M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd. against Captain R. Khosla. wherein Sahara Airlines Ltd. has raised a controversy about the jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal in considering the respondent as a workman. The Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had wrongly considered the respondent as a workman based on some earlier adjudication between the parties on the same issue while in fact no such earlier adjudication was brought to the notice of the high Court. The Court thus remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue as to whether the respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It would be relevant to reproduce para 7 to 9 of the said order as under:-