INDIAN AIRLINE LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed by the Indian Airlines Limited, represented by its General Manager (P) Airlines House, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027 challenging the correctness of the order passed by the National Industrial Tribunal in its Order dated 14.6.2004 in Approval Application No. NTB-34 of 2001 (arising out of Ref. No. NTB-1 of 1990) to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Standing Orders governing the petitioner.

(2.) (I) Mr. K.M. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 6, in reply, heavily contended that though the 2nd respondent is no more now alive, represented by his legal representatives R3 to R6 are entitled to get the subsistence allowance and also the fill back-wages from the date the second respondent was released from jail on 17.11.1998.

(3.) This Court is not able to agree with either of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. For, in a case where an employee is placed under suspension by the management it is settled law that he should be paid with subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. But, in the present case, the second respondent-late J.S. Naik while serving as Loader in Calicut Airport was arrested by the customs authorities and he was also kept in jail and criminal proceedings were also initiated against him. When he was imprisoned under Section 135 of the Customs Act, maximum punishment he had to undergo was 3 years. But, unfortunately, the trial could not be completed. As a result, he was constrained to file a Criminal M.C. No. 5195 of 1998 on the file of the Kerala High Court and the Kerala High Court also finding that he was kept inside the jail for more than three years under COFEPOSA detention order, by quashing the criminal proceedings directed to release him forthwith, as he underwent more than three years imprisonment. This shows that the order passed in Crl. M.C. No. 5195 of 1998 is not giving any clean chit by holding that the 2nd respondent was innocent in respect of COFEPOSA initiated under Section 135 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, the petitioner management also by placing him under suspension after he was released from jail on 17.11.1998 passed a detailed suspension order on 26.11.1998 and subsequently, he was also paid with subsistence allowance during the period he was placed under suspension after 26.11.1998. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in the above mentioned judgment in viz., Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and Another , a person who had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Therefore, such person is not entitled to payment of back-wages. Similarly, in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Others the Apex Court has clearly held that a person, who was placed under suspension, after completion of the criminal case, getting reinstatement in service will not be entitled to consequential benefits as a matter of course.