S GANAPATHI Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE purpose to dispose of this group of four appeals through a common judgment for the reason that the point of law that falls for determination in all the four cases is a common one. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals may be summarized as follows.

(2.) THE four appellants before us at the relevant time, i. e. , in the year 1979-80, were employees of Air India and were stationed at Calcutta. Pursuant to certain incidents that are alleged to have taken place in the month of October 1980, the Corporation instituted disciplinary proceedings against these employees and on the culmination of those proceedings, it was decided to award certain punishments to the four employees. We are not immediately concerned with the greater part of those proceedings because it is common ground that the Corporation applied to the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by way of four approval applications under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as"the said Act") to grant approval for the proposed disciplinary action. One of the requirements of that section is that the employees in question must be paid the equivalent of one months salary or wages. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that the concerned employees resisted the grant of approval and that they filed their written statements in those proceedings. Those written statements dealt with the merits of the cases.

(3.) IN the course of the arguments that were advanced, however, one more ground was canvassed on behalf of the employees, namely, that the requirements in respect of payment of one months wages had not been complied with by the Corporation. What was, in fact contended was that even though certain payments had been made to the concerned employees by Air India, the quantum of the amount did not correspond with the one months wages and that, consequently, the mandatory requirements of the section had not been complied with. The learned Member of the Tribunal dealt with various aspects of the cases on merits and recorded findings against the employees. However, in the concluding part of the order, while dealing with the objections in relation to section 33 (2) (c) of the said Act, the learned Member upheld the objection and recorded the finding that the approval as sought could not be granted on the ground that the requirements of the section had not been complied with or rather that the mandatory requirements had been breached.