AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. P K UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-Air India Limited, has filed the present petition to impugn the order dated 20th November, 1998 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. By the said order the Tribunal, refused permission to the petitioners for the action of dismissal imposed on the respondent pursuant to the domestic inquiry. The Tribunal whilst refusing to grant approval held that the inquiries were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and secondly that the respondent No. 1 was not paid subsistence wages in accordance with the practice prevailing in the petitioners management as set out in letter dated 22nd October, 1991 from the Industrial section to Assistant Accounts Officer.

(2.) BEFORE I proceed to dispose of the petition and consider the contentions as advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it would be gainful to refer to some relevant facts to the extent that they are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present petition. Two enquiries were initiated in so far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned. In so far as the 1st inquiry is concerned, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent No. 1 of 15th May, 1990 on the ground that he had sold staff concessional air tickets as full fare tickets. The respondent No. 1 replied to the same on 6th June, 1990. An Inquiry Committee was constituted on 17th May, 1991 and reconstituted on 26th June, 1992. The Inquiry Committee held various sittings. Evidence was recorded on 1st December, 1993. The respondent No. 1 was called upon to lead defence evidence if he so desired. The respondent No. 1 informed the Inquiry Committee that he had no defence witnesses, but he would like to examine himself. This request was rejected by the Inquiry Committee as absurd, as can be seen from the proceedings sheet. This also finds reflection in the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee in para 3 where it is recorded as under :-

(3.) THE second charge sheet against the respondent No. 1 was issued on 17th December, 1992. By the second charge sheet the respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for assisting a passenger Mr. Billoo Joginder Singh in arranging for boarding card on presentation of forged travel documents. The respondent No. 1 gave his explanation on 18th January, 1993. On 2nd February, 1993 the Enquiry Committee was constituted. Thereafter there were various sittings of the Committee. I do not wish to refer to those, except of 7th February, 1994 which was the 8th sitting where the respondent No. 1 was shown as not present and the inquiry was adjourned to 8th February, 1994 and on 8th February, 1994 where also it is set out that the respondent No. 1 did not attend, the statement of Mr. Kamath was recorded on 8th. One of the salient features of the said inquiry is that the Enquiry Committee at its sitting held on 6th April, 1993 before any evidence was led on behalf of the petitioners called on respondent No. 1 whether he would like to give any statement pertaining to the particular incident and his statement was recorded on that day. Based on this evidence amongst others the Enquiry Committee found the respondent No. 1 guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Based on findings of both the enquiries, by order dated March, 30, 1995 the petitioner imposed punishment of dismissal from services from the date of communication of the order. The said order was forwarded to the petitioner along with wages for a period of one month. The petitioners also applied to the Industrial Tribunal for permission under section 33 (2) (b) as there were pending Industrial References. That is how the matter came to the considered by the Industrial Tribunal.