AIR LANKA LIMITED Vs. JOHN WILLIAM NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1.The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Award dated 25.6.1985 passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.41 of 1984 on his file.

(2.) THE petitioner is a company registered as Air-Lanka Ltd., and is an International Carrier of the Government of Sri Lanka. It operates in India as a result of agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India through International Airports'of Madras, Bombay, Trivandrum and Tiruchi in India. It has an office in the City of Madras. THE first respondent was employed as an Office Helper in the Madras Office with effect from 15.10.1979. On 16.10.1984, the first respondent was found removing an Air Travel Bag from the Manager's Office without any permission. When this was noticed, the first respondent attempted to hide the Air Travel Bag and when questioned about the same, the first respondent admitted his guilt and submitted that he would not commit such offence again and hence he wanted to be excused. It appeared that on prior occasions there were several instances of lapses and misbehaviour in the discharge of duties on the part of the first respondent. He was censured by way of warning for his past misconduct. THE Madras Office sent a telex message on 16.10.1981 to the Colombo Headquarters Office requesting permission to terminate the services of the first respondent as he was found removing Air Travel Bag from the office and also intimated the previous misbehaviour and warnings and also recommended that the first respondent was not to be trusted and should not be kept any longer. THEn again by telex message dated 17.10.1981 the Madras Office informed the Headquarters Office of Colombo that due to compassionate ground there could be a punishment to the effect that one year increment would be withheld and warning could be issued that if there is any occurrence of this nature in future his services would be terminated forthwith. Colombo Headquarters Office, by telex message dated 20.10.1981 addressed to the Madras Office stated that when the offence committed is so grave, it warrants dismissal and disciplinary action should be taken and also intimated to withhold further action and wait for Head Office instructions. THE Headquarters Office, Colombo sent a telex dated 27.10.1981 addressed to the Madras Office stating that the first respondent should be given an opportunity on or before a specified date and in case the staff refused to submit the same he should be dismissed immediately. THEreafter, the Manager of the local office by Notice NAA 6-A/467/10/81, dated 31.10.1981 addressed to the first respondent herein stated that he was found removing air travel bag from the stock held in the office for his own use without the permission of the Manager and when that was noticed the first respondent tried to hide the same and when it was questioned the first respondent admitted his guilt and, as this act of the first respondent amounts to theft of company's property, called upon the first respondent to explain as to why his services should not be terminated with immediate effect and also informed that his reply should reach the office within 24 hours from the date of the said letter. THE first respondent by his letter dated 1.11.1981 submitted his explanation, wherein he had stated that he knew that he behaved very stupidly and that he should have taken the permission of the manager before trying to take the bag from the office and further stated that he did not take back the bag but left the bag. He had further stated that he would never do such a thing in future and that he would not take anything from the Air-Lanka Office in future and that was the first time that he had committed such an offence and that he had never committed this act before and also made an assurance that he would never do in future and hence requested to take sympathetic view in this behalf.

(3.) THE petitioner has also stated that the nature of business of the employer would be one of the factors that should be taken note of while deciding the question whether punishment was disproportionate or not. It is also stated that it would be impossible for the Management to retain a person in whom it has no confidence particularly when it is known that the employee had committed theft and that the Management would be justified in expecting total integrity from its employees particularly given the state of terrorism prevailing in which the first target of attack invariably is a Foreign Airline Office or its Aircraft, that there is ethnic unrest prevailing in Sri Lanka with several groups having grievances against the Sri Lanka Government and that the Airline Office could become a target of attack, that the petitioner was dealing with an employee, viz., the first respondent, who not only committed theft but had also pilferred confidential telex message and that this by itself would show that the employee was not one who was likely to reform. It is also stated that the Airline Office was far different from any of the commercial organisation and if at all that the employee ought to have been given some benefit he could have kept in mind a benefit of compensation. THE petitioner has also raised issues, which are as follows: (a) Whether the Labour Court while exercising discretion under Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act could direct reinstatement of an employee who has been found guilty of theft even by the Labour Court without considering the nature of work performed by the petitioner an International Airline and International Carrier of the Government of Sri Lanka particularly in the light of present state of affairs regarding security, safety of passengers and such like when absolute integrity of all employees to the satisfaction of the employer is a must. (b) Whether in the face of threats of international terrorism particularly directed against aircraft and offices of International Airlines of countries against which some group of ethnic grievances exist and it would be safe from the point of view of security and passengers'safety to direct reinstatement of an employee whose integrity is in question arising out of his committing theft from the Airline office itself more so when he holds a position which allows free entry and exit from the Airline office and Airport particularly in the case of the petitioner who has been already the target of a bomb blast in the Madras Airport relating to which one of its employees is an accused, reinstatement could be directed or whether it would be a fit case for grant of compensation.