Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 931
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
V.M. KANADE & A.K. MENON, JJ.
Melroy Bosco Dias & Others
Versus
Air India Engineering Services Limited & Another
Writ Petition No. 175 of 2014
Decided On: 17-04-2014
For the Petitioners:M.A. Amonkar, R.A. Amonkar, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R2, Lancy D'souza, Kavita Anchan i/b. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocates.
An employer cannot unjustifiably refuse to accept an employee's resignation when it is in compliance with the certified standing orders, and altering conditions of service must follow due process.
Headnote:
Resignation - Employment Dispute - Air India Certified Standing Orders - Clause 17, 18 - Aircraft Rules, 1937 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 9A - Productivity Linked Incentive - Deemed Withdrawal of Resignation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief from their employment with Air India and payment of legal dues due to delayed salaries and unpaid productivity linked incentives. The respondents declined to accept the resignations, citing essential services and public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' resignations were in compliance with the Air India Certified Standing Orders and no disciplinary action was pending against them. The court held that the respondents' refusal to accept the resignations was unjustified and allowed the petition.
Issues: The main issues were the refusal to accept the resignations, delayed payments, and the respondents' justification based on essential services and public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a contract of employment is not a bond of slavery and that an employer cannot deprive a permanent employee of the right to resign, especially when the resignations are in compliance with the certified standing orders. The court also highlighted the importance of following due process in altering conditions of service.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to relieve the petitioners from their employment.
A.K. Menon, J.
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This petition impugns the failure of the Respondents to accept the resignations of the Petitioners and their request to be relieved from services and to pay them all their legal dues.
3. The Petitioners were employed initially with respondent No.2 till February, 2013 and with effect from February, 2013 their services were transferred to Respondent No.1 Air India Engineering Services Limited. The employees union had challenged the hiving off the engineering department by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 in this Court in Writ Petition No.2457 of 2012. This Court rejected the challenge while noting that the service conditions have not been changed. The order of rejection was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9th May, 2013 in S.L.P. No.14219 of 2013. Respondent No.2 communicated the transfer to Petitioner No.1 with effect from 1st March, 2013 and confirmed that there was no adverse change in service conditions and it was without affecting the continuity of service, pay and allowances, Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) and perquisites”.
4. The Petitioners’ conditions of service were inter alia governed by the Air India Certified Standing Orders applicable to Workmen ['CSOs'] from time to time. Clause 17 of the said CSO provides for termination of service. Clause 18 of the CSO provides for resignation which is reproduced below:-
“18. RESIGNATION
(i) No workman shall resign from the service of the Company except by giving such notice as he would have received under Standing Order 17 if his services were to be terminated, or compensation in lieu of such notice, unless, at the request of the workman, the notice is waived or shorter notice accepted in writing by the Competent Authority. Such compensation shall be equivalent to the amount of the wages as defined in the explanation to Standing Order 17 which the workman would have drawn during the period by which the notice falls short of the prescribed period, and shall be deemed to be a liability owed to the Company for the purpose of Regulation 22(2) of the Air India Employees' Provident Fund Regulations, 1954.
(ii) A resignation given under (i) above may be accepted with immediate effect or at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, in which case the workman shall be paid his wages in respect of the entire period of notice given by him.
(iii) In case of short period of notice is accepted at the request of the workmen, he shall be entitled to receive his wages only for the actual number of days worked.
(iv) If a workman leaves the service of the Company without giving any notice or by giving inadequate notice, such resignation shall be liable to be construed as misconduct and may entail any of the punishments prescribed under Standing Order 20.
(v) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) and (iii) above, a workman shall not be entitled to tender his resignation and any resignation tendered by him shall not be effective or operative against the Company, unless the Company decides to accept the resignation, if at the time when such resignation is tendered, disciplinary action is pending against him or is intended or proposed to be taken against him by the appropriate authority.”
5. It is contended that some employees who are sent for training on various aircraft were required to execute bonds to conditionally remain in service for a specified period as set out below. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 had no such training and were not required to sign any bond to remain in employment for any particular period. Petitioner No.3 was sent for training for Boeing 787 in April, 2013. He had signed a bond that he would not be released from the services of the Company for a period of 5 years but he may be considered for release provided all the costs incurred on him by the Respondents is reimbursed to the Respondents.
