TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justify its action which it had taken under Regulation 31(2)(vi) of the International Airport Authority of India (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1980. By Part-II award dated 5.3.1997 the Tribunal held that the action taken by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner was justified in view of the evidence led before it. However, the termination was held to be effected from 29.4.1988 and not from 12.1.1988. 3. It appears that a purshis was filed on 6.8.1996 on behalf of the 1st respondent by its advocate declining to lead any additional evidence to justify its action and opted to rely on the evidence led prior to the decision in Part-I award. 4. The main contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that his services had been terminated under Regulation 31(2)(vi) of the aforesaid Regulations. He submits that the action taken under this regulation has been held to be void by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India v/s Viru Muthu Sukhlingam & anr., reported in 1993 II C.L.R. 521. The learned advocate points out that the Division Bench has held that the regulations had neither been approved by the Central Gove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 1st respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner. The learned advocate has also brought to my notice the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No.845 of 1998 in the case of Airport Authority of India v/s G.K.Pandey, delivered on 12.10.2004 where the Division Bench has agreed with the view taken by the earlier Division Bench in Viru Mutthu Sukhlingam's (supra) case that adminstrative instructions had not been framed by the 1st respondent and that, therefore, till the approval of the regulation by the Central Government they could not be relied upon for the purpose of justifying the termination without notice. 5. The learned advocate for the respondent submits that the Labour Court has committed an error in concluding that the termination of service of the petitioner is legal and justified. He submits that the Labour Court had concluded that the services could not have been terminated under Rule 31(2)(vi) as there was no abandonment of service. He submits that the Labour Court had rightly permitted the respondent to lead evidence afresh to justify the action taken by it. According to the learned advocate, there was sufficient evidence led before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ternational Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1980. In the case of International Airports Authority of India v/s Veer Mutthu Sukhlingam (supra), the Division Bench has held that the regulations could not be acted upon by the respondent since they have not been approved by the Central Government nor had they been published in the official gazette as required under the law. The Division Bench had, therefore, concluded that a termination of service under this regulation could not be justified if it was effected without notice to the workman. 7. A similar view was taken by another Division Bench in the case of Airports Authority of India v/s G.K.Pande in Appeal No.845 of 1998. This was an appeal between the same parties which are before me in the present writ petition. After Award Part-I was passed by the Labour Court holding that the action taken by the respondent under Regulation 31(2)(vi) was bad, the respondent challenged the award by filing Writ Petition No.321 of 1998. The learned Single Judge of this Court relied on Viru Mutthu Sukhlingam's case (supra) and dismissed the Sukhlingam' writ petition. Aggrieved by that decision, the responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct until it has been approved by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette. It will be seen that the power to make regulations is subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that no regulation made by the Authority under the Act shall have effect until it has been approved by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette. It is not in dispute that the regulations in question have not received the approval of the Central Government and, consequently, there is no publication in the Official Gazette. The regulations have been submitted to the Central Government for their approval and are pending consideration with them. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the regulations have no effect in the eye of law. They or any of them cannot be relied upon for the purpose of justifying the termination without notice. We agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge on this point and reject the submission." "5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Viru Muthu Sukhlingam. The judgment cited by the learned counsel has no application. As already ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion-in-chief, the witness has categorically stated as under: "I say that the management did not cast any aspersion on the workman, as his action was not construed as a misconduct and therefore the question of issuing a charge-sheet, seeking explanation and holding an enquiry did not arise. The management did not follow the said procedure, as it did not condemn the workman for committing any misconduct; but it honestly felt in the light of the circumstances that the workman was not interested in employment and left the job of his own accord."(Emphasis supplied) With this categorical statement on record, the Labour Court in Award Part-I had held that the services of the workman were illegaly and invalidly terminated. However, in Award Part-II the Labour Court has taken a contrary view and held that the workman had abandoned the services. The Labour Court also held that the action of the management i.e. the respondent No.1 herein, in terminating the services w.e.f. 12.1.1988 was legal and justified. Abandonment of service by a workman is antithetical to the termination of service by the employer. Both circumstances cannot co-exist. If the workman has abandoned his service, then....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o lead evidence after Award Part-I is delivered in order to justify its action. This is because Award Part-I has been upheld by this Court in Appeal No.845 of 1998. The management has chosen not to lead any evidence in the matter. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned advocate for the workman in the case of Theatre Employees' Union & ors. v/s S.V.Kotnis & ors. (supra), need not be considered. The judgment in the case of Neeta Kaplish v/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court & anr. (supra) also need not detain me in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. The workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service. 13. The submission of the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 that it would not be possible for the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in view of the agreement between the Airports Authority of India and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd., is unacceptable. The petitioner will be treated in the same manner as other workmen who are today working with the Airports Authority of India. 14. As regards the back wages, the evidence led by the workman indicates that he made several attempts to get alternative employment and th....