P A PRABHU Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of arguments Mr. Buch, the learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the charges levelled against the Petitioner viz., (i) unauthorised driving of ramp equipment and (ii) causing damage to the property belonging to I.A.A.I. are not covered by any of the misconducts as provided in Regulation 42 of Air-India Employee's Service Regulations. Mr. Buch also urged that even if the charges levelled against the Petitioner are held to be proved, the removal of the Petitioner from service is unconscionable and harsh and grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

(2.) Mr. Bharucha, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondents on the other hand urged that the scope of enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is too narrow and limited and the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner could be better adjudicated in the dispute that may be referred by the appropriate government for adjudication. Mr. Bharucha, the learned Sr. counsel also submitted that in case the Petitioner raises the industrial dispute, the appropriate government may refer the industrial dispute and upon such reference being made the concerned tribunal may be directed to decide the reference expeditiously and such reference will be decided by the tribunal on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order.

(3.) Mr. Buch, the learned counsel for the Petitioner on consideration of the submission made by Mr. Bharucha is satisfied with the course suggested by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondents. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of by following order :