AIR INDIA Vs. S GANAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Air India are challenging the legality of the order dated April 30, 1983 passed by the Presiding Officer, National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dismissing the application seeking approval to the action of removal of respondent No. 1 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The facts giving rise to filing of that application are as follows.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was an employee of Air India and working as Traffic Supervisor in the Commercial Department at Calcutta. On or about Nov. 17, 1980 a charge-sheet was issued to respondent No. 1 alleging wilful insubordination, disobedience and disorderly behaviour and wilful damage to the work and property of the Corporation. The charge pertains to the actions of respondent No. 1 on Nov. 9, 1980 and Nov. 12, 1980. The charge-sheet recites that respondent No. 1 on Nov. 9, 1980 took away some of the important flight papers in respect of the flights to be operated on that day and misbehaved with his superior officer; while on Nov. 12, 1980 the employee was found preventing passengers from flying on the flight AI-302 stating that the flights were not safe. The inquiry committee was constituted to examine the charges framed against the employee, and the inquiry committee constituted under the Regulations, submitted report holding respondent No. 1 guilty of the charges levelled. By an order dated Nov. 3, 1981 the competent authority accepted the report and ordered that the employee be removed from service from the date of the communication of the order. The order was forwarded to the employee along with a demand draft for the sum of Rs. 1,675.24 as required by the proviso to Sub-clause (b) of Section 33(2) of the Act, On the same day, that is Nov. 7, 1981, the petitioner filed an application under Section 33(2) of the Act before the Presiding Officer of the National Industrial Tribunal for approval of the action taken by the petitioners. Three other applications for approval against three other employees were also filed before respondent No. 2. Tribunal and all the four applications were heard and disposed of by a common order, which is under challenge.

(3.) The employees raised various contentions before the Industrial Tribunal and the findings recorded by the Tribunal are that the complaint of the employees that the charge-sheets served on them were invalid and vague and therefore the proceedings were vitiated was without any substance. The Tribunal further held that the complaint that the inquiry committee acted both as Judge and as prosecutor, was not correct. The Tribunal recorded a clear cut finding that the inquiry committee had conducted the inquiry fairly and properly and in accordance with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal did not accept the charge that the inquiry committee did not examine the witnesses or put leading questions to those witnesses who were examined. The Tribunal further held that the order of dismissal and the payment of wages and the application for approval were done simultaneously by the Corporation. After rejecting all the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the employees, the Tribunal proceeded to reject the application for approval on the ground that one month's wages were not paid to the employees. The claim that one month's wages were not paid was based on three grounds, first that the washing allowance was not included in the wages, but this contention was given up at the hearing after perusal of the pay bills. The second ground was that the shift allowance was not included in one month's wages, but this cause was negatived by the Tribunal holding that the shift allowance was not payable when the employees were not working on the shifts. The third ground, which prevailed with the Tribunal was that the professional tax under the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Callings and Employments Act, 1979 should not have been deducted from one month's wages. On this ground alone, the Tribunal held that the requirements of proviso to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act are not complied with and thereupon the approval was refused. The order of the Tribunal is under challenge.