MGMT OF INDIA AIRLINES Vs. INDL TRIBUNAL I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal by the Indian Airlines, represented by its Station Head, Begumpet, Secunderabad, is directed against the Judgment and Order dated September 20, 2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 13392 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the Writ Petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein was allowed in the following terms:

(2.) The writ petitioner, respondent No. 2 herein, at the relevant time was working as senior Security Guard in the Indian Airlines, Begumpet. A charge sheet was given to him on June 26, 1991 alleging that he was absent from duty for 257 days. The respondent No. 2 herein raised a defence that because of his mental illness, he could not attend the Office. Being not satisfied with his explanation, a domestic enquiry was directed to be conducted. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued to him but he did not respond. A final notice had been issued calling upon him to attend the enquiry on November 15, 1991 which was received by him on November 14, 1991 at 6 p.m. Allegedly, he pleaded his inability to attend the said enquiry. But the enquiry was conducted ex parte against the 2nd respondent wherein the management examined its witnesses. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the delinquent officer were proved. He was thereafter dismissed from service.

(3.) As at the relevant point of time a dispute with regard to the service conditions of Indian Airlines employees was pending with the National Industrial Tribunal, an application for approval of the said order in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed. Such approval was granted by the National Industrial Tribunal holding that the enquiry was fair and proper. An industrial dispute thereafter was raised which was referred for adjudication before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. But, having regard to the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal altered the punishment of dismissal from service to that of compulsory retirement by award dated January 13, 1999. The learned single Judge, having regard to the fact that the 2nd respondent was asked to attend the enquiry on November 15, 1991 by reason of notice dated November 14, 1999, held that the same was violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned single Judge referred to Standing Orders 25 and 26 for arriving at the conclusion that at least seven days' notice ought to have been given.