GULF AIR Vs. GULF AIR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner-Gulf Air challenges the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 18 August 2004, answering the reference against the petitioner and holding that the order of dismissal of Vinod Malhotra, a member of the respondent Union, as illegal, with a direction that he should be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) Mr.Vinod Malhotra was working as a Passenger Service Supervisor with the petitioner. One Ms.Shalini Vaswani was employed as a Passenger Service Agent. The Petitioner issued a charge-sheet to Mr.Malhotra on 28 January 1997. Gist of the charge-sheet was that Ms.Vaswani checked in a passenger who had excess baggage of twelve kgs., and she asked the passenger to pay Rs.1400/- for excess baggage. Ms.Vaswani collected Rs. 1000/- from the passenger and when Mr.Malhotra came to know, he asked her to give him half of the amount.

(3.) An enquiry was instituted against Mr.Malhotra. In the enquiry Ms.Vaswani was examined as the witness by the petitioner. She was the only witness. She did not support the case of the petitioner, and she was cross-examined by the Petitioner also. Mr.Malhotra was represented through an advocate. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that Mr.Malhotra was guilty of fraud, dishonesty in connection with petitioner's business and property, taking bribe and illegal gratification and collecting money without the permission of the management. As regard the charges of giving bribe or illegal gratification to anyone and engaging in trade in the premises of the establishment, Mr.Malhotra was not held guilty by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer accordingly gave his report on 31 July 1997. By letter dated 27 October 1997, the findings of the Enquiry Officer with the report were given to Mr.Malhotra and he was called upon to show cause within seven days. On 11 November 1997, Mr.Malhotra submitted his reply. He denied and controverted the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer and contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.