SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
AIR INDIA LTD.
Versus
L. R. SOLANKI
Decided On Date: 11/04/05

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(3)(b) - Approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of Act. - In an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of Act, Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to a prima facie evaluation as regards validity or otherwise of domestic enquiry. - In an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to a prima facie evaluation as regards the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal has launched upon an elaborate evaluation of the facts and circumstances; something which it was not justified in doing both having regard to the limited nature of the jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) and the limited nature of the jurisdiction when dealing with the evaluation of evidence in a disciplinary enquiry. In a disciplinary enquiry the strict rules of evidence which apply to a criminal trial are not attracted. The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt but proof on a preponderance of probabilities. In a disciplinary proceeding, however, it would be farfetched to require that the management must prove every possible link in a chain of unlawful behaviour. The presence of the first respondent at the scene of offence was admitted since it was an admitted position that the first respondent had in fact, entered the aircraft. Apart from the presence of the first respondent, the fact that (i) he was present in the jeep which had sped away upon being accosted by the Customs Officer; (ii) the first respondent was identified as being the person in the jeep by the co-workman, Godambe; (iii) upon being apprehended the first respondent had, out of a list of names, identified the name of Winjuda and had led the Customs Party to his residence from where a seizure of 92 gold bars has been made, are the circumstances which at the prima facie stage were sufficient to justify the grant of approval in the application under Section 33(2)(b). In the circumstances, interference under Article 226 was warranted in order to correct a clear transgression by the Tribunal of the limits of its own jurisdiction under the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of Tribunal of 22nd July, 2004 declining to grant its approval upon an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is quashed and set aside. The approval application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall stand allowed.

       Model Standing Orders - Order 14(4)(c), 1st Proviso - Earning of increments during suspension period. - Earning of increments during period of suspension of workman, depends only upon conclusion of enquiry.

Judgment

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order of the national Industrial Tribunal of 22nd July, 2004 declining to grant its approval upon an application under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 2 ) THE first respondent was appointed as a Sweeper in the inflight Service department of Air India on 4th October, 1977 and was confirmed in service with effect from 1st October, 1978. On 1st October, 1991, he was promoted as handyman (Safai) and was deemed to have been confirmed with effect from 1st july, 1991. On 30th October, 1993, the first respondent was on duty in the third shift commencing from 2300 hours in the Catering and Cabin Service of Air india at Mumbai Airport. An incident is alleged to have taken place in which the first respondent, along with an employee by the name of S. V. Godambe who was an Assistant Cabin Supervisor proceeded in a Jeep towards an Aircraft, vt-EEO, which had operated Flight AI-710 from Dubai to Mumbai and which was parked at Bay 66. At about 2300 hours, the first respondent and his co- employee are alleged to have entered the Aircraft and to have removed two cloth bundles consisting of 92 contraband gold bars and to have thereafter alighted from the Aircraft and proceeded back to the Jeep. The first respondent and a co- employee were accosted by C. S. Pereira, a Customs Official who was on duty and who, as the evidence of the enquiry would show, had intelligence information about the unlawful activity which was to take place that night. Despite Pereira calling upon the occupants to stop the Jeep, this was not done and the occupants fled sway from the scene of incident in the Jeep. The Jeep was eventually apprehended at the Taxi Gate and Godambe was taken into custody. He in turn stated that the first respondent was the other person who was present with him in the Jeep and that he was working on an Aircraft belonging to Delta airlines. The first respondent was apprehended and it is alleged that in the course of interrogation, he confessed to his involvement and led the Investigating Party to the residence of a person by the name of Winjuda at Marol where a recovery of 92 gold bars was effected. The contraband weighed 10,727. 2 Grams valued at rs. 48,70,149/- in the local market. Winjuda is stated to have admitted before the customs Officers that the gold bars were handed over by the first respondent after the consignment arrived in the Aircraft which came from Dubai.

( 3 ) THE first respondent was placed on suspension pending an enquiry on 1st November, 1993. On 3rd March, 1994, he was chargesheeted in a disciplinary proceeding involving misconduct inter alia of dishonesty in connection with the business of the employer, and an act subversive of discipline under the provisions of the Central Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment model Standing Orders Act, 1946. Evidence was adduced in the course of the departmental enquiry. On behalf of the management, evidence was inter alia adduced of two Investigating Officers of the Customs Department, C. S. Pereira and Subodh Kumar. The first respondent stepped into the witness box in support of his defence. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges of misconduct were proved and on 31st July, 1996, a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report was forwarded to the first respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why the findings should not be accepted. The first respondent submitted his reply on 28th february, 1997. The Competent Authority passed an order on 28th September, 1997, imposing the penalty of dismissal upon the first respondent. The order was communicated to the first respondent on 3rd December, 1997 together with a cheque in the amount of Rs. 8,708/- being wages of one month which were paid with reference to the provisions of section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. The petitioner filed an approval application on 3rd December, 1997. By the impugned order, the Presiding Officer o














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top