AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. L S SIBU, OFFICER-APRON, GROUND SERVICES DEPARTMENT(GSD), AIR INDIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.12129/2015 setting aside the transfer order of the writ petitioner (first respondent herein) by the appellant-Air India Limited, on the ground that he has been transferred only because he was irksome to others. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention to hold that what cannot be achieved directly, cannot be achieved indirectly. Finding the transfer to be punitive, the transfer order was set aside.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner (first respondent herein) was working with the Ground Services Department of Air India Limited at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport as Officer (Apron). He was also involved in union activities and was the Regional Secretary for the Kerala Region of Aviation Industry and Employees Guild, a recognised Trade Union. The petitioner had taken initiative to protect various grievances of the employees of Air India. That apart, when the ground handling services in the International Airport at Thiruvananthapuram was granted in favour of a private joint venture company by name Air India SATS Airports Services Pvt. Ltd. (AISATS), the writ petitioner had alleged extraneous reasons and alleged violation of Policy decision of the Government of India, resulting in huge revenue loss to Air India. The petitioner had approached appropriate authorities bringing to their notice the arbitrary and illegal action of the then Chairman and Managing Director. Ext.P1 is a representation made by the petitioner representing the Aviation Industry Employees' Guild as its Regional Secretary. The petitioner had also brought to the notice of the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the financial scam and economic fraud in the Thiruvananthapuram Airport as per representation at Ext.P He had also raised industrial disputes before the Regional Labour Commissioner in relation to denial of eligible allowances to a lady staff working in Air India and also raised the issue of denial of eligible flying allowances to the cabin crew of Air India Express. Exts.P3 and P4 are copies of such petitions.

(3.) The said actions by the petitioner was only on account of his status as an office bearer of the Union and he is a "protected workman" as defined in the Explanation to Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID Act', for short). Ext.P5 is the copy of list of "protected workmen" submitted by the Employees Union. By reason only of the petitioner having been a whistle blower, constantly irking the higher authorities, questioning them about their mala fide deals, a false case was foisted against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment. The internal committee, without any basis, concluded that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. That report was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing WP(C) No.4001/2016 which was disposed of by this Court directing the Committee to reconsider the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the complaint relating to sexual harassment filed against the petitioner is a cooked up complaint in order to wreak vengeance against him. The signatures are all forged and fictitious. Consequent to the direction of this Court to reconsider the matter, action has yet to be taken. However, with the intention to punish the petitioner, Ext.P6 order of transfer was issued on 25.2015 transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram Airport to Hyderabad. There is nothing to indicate that the order was issued in exigencies of services or for expediency of administration.