AIR INDIA LIMITED MUMBAI Vs. K S BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. The respondent waives service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) AIR India Limited challenges the order passed on 14th May 2001, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal by which the Tribunal declined to grant its approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act"), to the dismissal of the respondent from its service. The respondent joined the services of the employer in August 1963 as a Teleprinter Operator. Between the night of 29th May 1986 and 30th May 1986, the respondent was on duty in the third shift between 9. 30 p. m. and 6. 30 a. m. One of his functions was to allot duties to Cleaners and Sweepers on incoming flights of Air India and other Airlines such as Air Canada with which Air India had Ground Services contracts. On the night between 29th May 1986 and 30th May 1986, the respondent transferred an employee of Air India, Peter David from Group-F to Group-E and assigned the job of cleaning an incoming Aircraft belonging to Air Canada to Group E. Peter David was asked to clean the Aircraft toilets of the Air Canada Flight. During the course of investigation by the Customs Authorities it was found that in pursuance of a conspiracy between the petitioner, Peter David and one Anthony, Anthony was to bring in a large quantity of gold on the Air Canada Flight and leave it in a particular toilet of the Aircraft. Peter David was to be assigned the task of cleaning toilets of the Air Canada Flight by the respondent. Peter David would remove the said consignment of gold from the toilet and carry the gold concealed on his person out of the Customs enclosure. The allegation against the respondent was that in pursuance of the conspiracy, he shifted Peter David from one Group to the other in order to facilitate the smuggling operation, Accordingly, Peter David cleaned the toilet of the Air Canada Flight which arrived at Bombay Airport. While returning through the Airport, Peter David was searched by a Security Guard of the Air Intelligence Unit of the Customs Department and during the search 120 gold bars valued at Rs. 29. 31 lakhs at the then local market rate were found on his person concealed in belts tied around his waist. The contraband gold was seized from Peter David and he was immediately arrested by the Customs Authorities. On interrogation, Peter David confessed to his involvement together with the respondent and one Anthony in a conspiracy to smuggle gold which was to arrive on the Air Canada Flight. The respondent was arrested on 29th/30th May 1986 by the Air Intelligence Unit, Customs at the Bombay Airport and came to be suspended with effect from 29th May 1986.

(3.) ADJUDICATION proceedings came to be held against the respondent, Peter David and Anthony in pursuance of which the Additional Collector of Customs by an order dated 23rd October 1987 imposed a personal penalty each on the petitioner and the two other persons besides ordering the confiscation of the gold which had been seized. An amount of Rs. 4,500/- was also recovered from the residential premises of the respondent and that was directed to be adjusted towards the personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- which was imposed on the respondent. The adjudicating authority relied upon the statement of Peter David as well as upon the statement of the respondent which was inculpatory. The contention that the statements had been retracted and that they should consequently be discarded was not accepted by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority referred to the fact that the statements contained a detailed account of the nature of the smuggling activities; that there was no convincing explanation coming forth from the respondent as to why he had to make a last minute change in the posting of Peter David and that the surrounding facts and circumstances, therefore, pointed to the complicity of the respondent. The statement of the respondent showed that he had boarded the Aircraft on the particular night, and had used the Air India Vehicle for going up to the Aircraft. The adjudicating authority noted that if Peter David had not been intercepted by the Security Guards, the respondent would have utilised the Jeep for transporting the contraband together with Peter David outside the Airport.