Unapproved service regulation cannot justify termination; reinstatement with continuity follows, while back wages are remanded.

Termination of service could not be sustained under Regulation 31(2)(vi) because the regulation had not been approved by the Central Government or published in the Official Gazette, and no notice or enquiry had been held. The evidence also failed to establish misconduct, and the record did not support abandonment of service, since abandonment was inconsistent with the employer's act of termination. As a result, reinstatement with continuity of service followed. The issue of back wages turned on unresolved factual questions about alternative employment and means of subsistence, so that limited question was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh determination after further evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether termination of service could be justified under Regulation 31(2)(vi) of the International Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1980 when the regulation had not been approved by the Central Government and no notice or enquiry had been given, and whether the workman had abandoned service or committed misconduct; (ii) whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and whether the question of back wages required remand for determination.

Issue (i): whether termination of service could be justified under Regulation 31(2)(vi) of the International Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1980 when the regulation had not been approved by the Central Government and no notice or enquiry had been given, and whether the workman had abandoned service or committed misconduct.

Analysis: The regulation was held to be ineffective in law because it had not received the approval of the Central Government and had not been published in the Official Gazette, and therefore could not be relied upon to sustain termination without notice. The evidence also did not establish misconduct: the management witness admitted that the workman was not proceeded against for misconduct, no charge-sheet was issued, and no enquiry was held. On that material, a finding of abandonment could not stand, since abandonment and employer termination are mutually inconsistent.

Conclusion: The termination could not be justified under the regulation, and the findings upholding abandonment and misconduct were unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the workman.

Issue (ii): whether the workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and whether the question of back wages required remand for determination.

Analysis: Once the termination was found unlawful, reinstatement with continuity of service followed. On back wages, the material on record raised factual questions concerning alternative employment and means of subsistence, and the evidence was insufficient for a final determination by the Court. The proper course was to remit that limited question to the Labour Court for decision after allowing further evidence.

Conclusion: The workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, and the issue of back wages was remanded for fresh determination.

Final Conclusion: The award on the substantive justification for termination was set aside, relief of reinstatement was granted, and only the monetary consequence relating to back wages was sent back for adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A service termination cannot be sustained on the basis of an unapproved and unnotified regulation, and a finding of abandonment cannot co-exist with an employer's act of termination when the evidence does not establish misconduct.

---