AIR INDIA LTD Vs. SASHIKALA JARAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution arise out of an award of the central Government Industrial Tribunal at mumbai on a reference to adjudication under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court has arrived at the conclusion that the order of termination that was passed against the First Respondent stands vitiated. The First Respondent who was at the material time an Air Hostess in Air India has been directed to be reinstated without back wages. The First Respondent was employed as a Trainee Air Hostess with Air India on february 17, 1983. She was granted leave for a period of 31 days between June 1, 1988 to july 1, 1988 and was permitted to leave station in order to enable her to join her husband who was then posted at Muscat. On the request of the First Respondent, the period of leave was extended until August 15, 1988 on medical grounds. With effect from September 2, 1988, the First Respondent was sanctioned maternity leave and by a communication dated September 22, 1988 she was permitted to proceed abroad during the period of her leave. On April 25, 1989, the First Respondent gave birth to a child at Muscat. On May 26, 1989 the First respondent sought an extension of the period of leave and by a letter dated August 2, 1989 her leave came to be extended until October 24, 1989. On October 24, 1989 the Petitioner sought a further extension of leave by a period of six months, which was declined by the authorities on November 29, 1989. The First respondent by a letter dated December 2, 1989 sought leave without pay in view of the difficulties which she was facing in relation to her young child. This request was turned down on December 12, 1989. The First Respondent once again made a representation together with a Paediatrician's certificate on December 27, 1989 seeking leave without pay for a period of three months. This came to be declined on january 12, 1990. By her letter dated February 14, 1990 the First Respondent recorded that she was suffering from a thyroid problem and set out the difficulties which she was then facing in feeding her infant child. The First respondent stated that she was sincere in her desire to continue with her job but, in view of her difficulties, sought unpaid leave of four months. By a communication dated March 9, 1990 the authorities required the First respondent to forward to them photocopies of her prescriptions, medical investigation and cash memos reflecting the purchase of medicines. The First Respondent furnished copies of the medical investigation and prescriptions by a letter dated March 14, 1990 stating that in so far as the cash memos were concerned, she was undergoing free medical treatment at the Police Hospital at Muscat in the Sultanate of Oman. On April 25, 1990, the authorities called upon the First Respondent who was in Oman to report to the Medical officer at Mumbai to which the First respondent responded on May 10, 1990 stating that she had sought leave without pay and not medical leave in which case there was no reason to ask her to report to the Medical Officer.

(2.) BY a letter dated October 1, 1990 the first Respondent was finally called upon to report for duty by October 10, 1990, failing which it was stated that disciplinary action would be taken against her. According to the first Respondent, this letter was received by her on October 13, 1990 at Oman. Even before the letter could be received, on October 12, 1990 a charge- sheet came to be issued to the first Respondent for holding a disciplinary inquiry on the ground that the First Respondent had wilfully absented herself on the expiry of her leave. On October 25, 1990, the First respondent once again sought a sympathetic reconsideration of her case in view of the circumstances in which she and her infant were placed. The authorities in a letter dated november 7, 1990 stated that while they were concerned about the condition of the child, there was no reason why the First Respondent should not seek medical assistance for herself and her child in Mumbai and she was directed to report to the Deputy Director of Medical services in Mumbai. On November 11, 1990 the First Respondent informed the Deputy director, Inflight Services Department that she was in a stage of early pregnancy again; that she was suffering from premature bleeding and that her Gynaecologist had diagnosed it as a case of threatened abortion advising her three months' rest. The correspondence with the authorities continued with the First Respondent informing the authorities on January 20, 1991 that she was unable to report for work in view of her medical condition. The inquiry which was convened against the First Respondent thereupon proceeded in the absence in the First respondent. By an order dated November 12, 1992 the Deputy Director of Inflight Services came to the conclusion that the finding of misconduct against the First Respondent stood proved and that he concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The First Respondent was accordingly dismissed from service with effect from the date of communication of the order.

(3.) THE Petitioner thereupon sought the approval of the Industrial Tribunal to the termination of the services of the First respondent under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Presiding officer of the Tribunal passed an order of approval on May 13, 1994. Thereupon there was a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which has culminated in the impugned award of the industrial Tribunal dated August 28, 2003.