VIMAL S ROY CAPTAIN Vs. NEPC AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the respondents as a Senior Co-Pilot in January 1995 and was confirmed as Captain in March, 1996. The petitioner was not paid earned wages and several other amounts and, therefore, he filed a complaint under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act) on 3-6-1997 claiming an amount of Rs. 8,43,200/- as remuneration for the period from 1-1-1997 to 3-5-1997 and an amount of Rs. 6,800/- as lay-off compensation. The petitioner further sought a direction against the respondents for detailing the petitioner on any scheduled flight for a mandatory route check.

(2.) AN ad interim order was passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 474 of 1997 by which the respondents herein were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs in Court or to furnish a solvent security for the same amount and a further direction was given to the respondents to detail the petitioner on scheduled flight for a mandatory route check. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed a revision application under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act and submitted that the appropriate Government being the Central Government, the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act would not be available to the petitioner. It was further contended that by an ordinance of 11-10-1995, the appropriate Government for airlines industry is the Central Government and not the State Government and, therefore, the order passed by the Industrial Court was without jurisdiction. The petitioner on realising this, withdrew the complaint and filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 19-6-1997. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 8 lacs as salary and benefits for the period of 1-1-1997 to 4-5-1997, lay-off compensation from 5-5-1997 to 18-6-1997 @ Rs. 6,800/p. m. amounting to Rs. 3,06,000/ -. In all, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 11,49,200/ -.

(3.) A written statement was filed by the respondents raising a plea that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the Labour Court at Mumbai could not decide the issue as the employment of the petitioner was at Chennai and, therefore, the question of the Labour Court at Mumbai exercising the jurisdiction did not arise. The respondents, however, admit that the petitioner was laid-off from the duty from 5-5-1997 on account of the fact that the customs authorities did not release the aircraft but since the petitioner had resigned from the service, he was not entitled to his claim as set out in his application.