Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T. Raja, J.
Indian Airline Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Presiding Officer, National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 27999 of 2004
Decided On : 24-09-2012
For the Appellant : K. Srinivasamurthy
For the Respondent: K.M. Ramesh
An employee involved in a crime and subsequently acquitted is not entitled to back-wages, and an employee detained under COFEPOSA for a period exceeding the maximum sentence is not entitled to subsistence allowance.
Headnote:
Indian Airlines Limited - Employment Dispute - Customs Act, 1962, Section 135 - The court discussed the application of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and its interpretation in relation to the imprisonment of the employee. The court also referenced judgments related to the entitlement of back-wages and pensionary benefits for employees involved in criminal cases.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between Indian Airlines Limited and an employee, Late J.S. Naik, who was involved in attempting to load a briefcase with currencies into a flight. The employee was arrested, imprisoned, and subsequently released. The airline placed the employee under suspension and sought approval for his removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee, having involved himself in a crime and being detained under COFEPOSA for three years, was not entitled to subsistence allowance or back-wages. The court also held that the employee was not entitled to consequential benefits as a matter of course after reinstatement.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement of the employee to subsistence allowance and back-wages after being involved in a criminal case, as well as the application of Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an employee involved in a crime and subsequently acquitted is not entitled to back-wages, and that an employee detained under COFEPOSA for a period exceeding the maximum sentence is not entitled to subsistence allowance. The court also emphasized that reinstatement does not automatically entitle the employee to consequential benefits.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order granting subsistence allowance to the employee and allowed the writ petition filed by Indian Airlines Limited.
T. Raja, J.
The present writ petition is filed by the Indian Airlines Limited, represented by its General Manager (P) Airlines House, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027 challenging the correctness of the order passed by the National Industrial Tribunal in its Order dated 14.6.2004 in Approval Application No. NTB-34 of 2001 (arising out of Ref. No. NTB-1 of 1990) to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Standing Orders governing the petitioner.
(i) Mr. K. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent-Late J.S. Naik who joined as a Loader on 10.8.1983 on probation, after his confirmation on 10.2.1984 as Loader, got promoted as senior Loader on 10.1.1991. When he was in Calicut Airport on duty as Loader on 11.9.1995 in the checking counter of the petitioner Airlines at Calicut Airport for IC 993 Calicut to Sharjah Right, the security personnel found an unclaimed brief case with tag carrying seat No. 21-C. As the said baggage did not pass through X-ray screening, and in spite of the announcement nobody claimed the baggage, the airport personnel went inside the flight and found that the passenger occupying seat No. 21-C did not have the counterfoil of the said baggage tag. Finally, the said brief case containing Rs. 1.3 crores was handed over to the customs authorities and the customs authorities who had opened the brief case found that it contained currencies of 26 countries to the value of Rs. 1.3 crores.
(ii) Subsequently, on enquiry, the second respondent Late-J.S. Naik, said to have given a statement to the customs authority admitting that he has attempted to load the brief case in question surreptitiously into the flight IC 993 bound to Sharjah. He was arrested by the police at the instance of the customs authorities on 22.9.1995 and remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he moved a bail application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam.
(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the initial bail application was rejected, subsequently, he was granted bail on condition that he should deposit Rs. 1 lakh in cash and execute a bond for Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties having solvency certificates for Rs. 2 lakhs each and this order was subsequently modified and he was asked to execute a bond for Rs. 1 lakh with two solvent sureties having solvency certificates for the like amount. Unfortunately, the second respondent was not able to comply the same. Therefore, he was confined in jail. In the meanwhile, between 23.1.1996 to 23.1.1998 he was detained under COFEPOSA. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that when the 2nd respondent can be imposed with the punishment of three years imprisonment u/s 135 of the Customs Act, having undergone the imprisonment in jail for more than three years, finally he filed a Criminal M.C. No. 5195 of 1998 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam to quash the proceedings on the ground that he was imprisoned for more than the maximum period of three years sentence awarded on conviction. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by its detailed order allowed the Criminal M.C. No. 5195 of 1998 quashing the entire proceedings against the 2nd respondent and he was also directed to be released forthwith if his custody was not required for any other offences.
(iv) The learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the two observations made by the Kerala High Court in the said judgment stated that quashing of the proceedings by the Kerala High Court was made only for the reason that the second respondent had completed more than three years of imprisonment. Since the offence that can be sustained against him is only punishment u/s 135 of the Customs Act which provides the maximum punishment of imprisonment of three years, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has rightly quashed the proceedings. Secondly, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for t
