S SURENDRANATH Vs. AIR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 26.5.2010 and for direction to pay all the benefits to the petitioner from 26.5.2010. As per the impugned order, the petitioners services were terminated under Service Regulation 13(a).

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed originally as a Aircraft Technician in the then M/s.Indian Airlines on 1.11.1980 and he was in service for 30 years. He was promoted to the category of Aircraft Engineer with effect from 19.7.1988, Senior Aircraft Engineer with effect from 12.8.1992, Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1.10.1999 and as Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1.4.2007.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Subramanian, is that the impugned order, on the face of it, is based on certain misconduct and in such circumstances without conducting any enquiry, the order was passed and therefore, it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. He would also submit that the order was passed in terms of regulation 13 of the Indian Airlines Employees Service Regulations and it is not open to the respondents to invoke such powers. It is his submission that most of the employees who were terminated along with the petitioner were taken back and the petitioner has been singled out and that discrimination is violating Article 14 of the Constitution. It is his case that the petitioner joined on 1.11.1980 and he was a Aircraft Engineer till 1.4.2007. It is his submission that the conciliation proceedings were pending at the time of issuance of the impugned order and therefore, approval should have been obtained as per section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To substantiate his contention that regulation 13 is not applicable, he would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Airlines Ltd., vs. Prabhad D.Kanan [(2006) 11 SCC 67]. He would also rely upon the judgment in M.Thanikachalam and others vs. Madhuranthakam Agricultural Producers Co.operative Marketing Society and others [2000 (4) CTC 556 (FB)] to the effect that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ousted by virtue of section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to him, there was no charge memo issued and no charge was framed and no allegation of misconduct was made and therefore, there is no question of conciliation proceedings, by relying upon the judgment in Satwati Deswal vs. State of Haryana and others [2009) 8 SCJ855], apart from the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others [(1998) 8 SCC 1]. He would distinguish the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents in A.P.Foods vs. S.Samuel and others [(2006) 5 SCC 469] by contending that it was in respect of the award passed under Bonus Act, after appreciation of evidence.