AIR INDIA CORPORATION, BOMBAY versus V. A. REBELLOW & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 24-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
·• 
606 
AIR INDIA CORPORATION, BOMBAY 
v. 
V. A. REBELLOW & ANR. 
Februarv 24. 1972 
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, I. D. DUA 
0AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 ·Of 1947), ~'- '33(1 )(b), 33(2)(b) 
and 
33A-Tenninntion of servic~~ 0/ en1p/oy~e-NOt for 
111is-:onduct-Ap-
proval of Tribunal not obtained~Legalil•y. 
The respondent htid be.en employed by the appellant as an Assistant 
Station Superintendent. An order was passed· terminating his services with 
immr~diate effect with P'1Yment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. 
He filed a complaint under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
before the Labour Court before which. 1.1n industrial dispute was pending. 
<J,lleging that the tcrn1ination of hf.s service was illegal for tl'r! reason 
inter a/ia tlY.tt the approval of the Labour Court for such termination was· 
not obtained. 
Th~ uppellunt contended thut the respondent was not a 
•.vorkman and thal hr.! was ·not conC:e'rned in the industrial dispute pending 
in the Labour Court. 
Pursuant to the directions of the Latour Court, 
the appellant filed v. written statement in which it was pleaded that without 
prejudice to the contention that this .case should be decided on the aforesaid 
preliminary points raised by the appellant the order of termination of the 
respondents' services was valid because his services were terminated under 
Regulation 48 of the Air India Employees' Service Regulations framed 
with previous app'roV':ll of the Central Govenunent, and under that regu .. 
lation the services of a permanent employee may be terminated without 
assigning any reason. It was added that without prejudice to the plea 
that the appellant W'"JS not bound to discl~e any reason for terminating 
the services of the respondent, the latrer•s services weTe terminated be-
cause of the appellant's total Jo-s of confiden~.e in the respondent on 
account of gtave suspicioJns regarding his private cpnduct and behaviour 
with the Air Hostess';?s of the appelJ-:in.t-Corporation. 
The Labour Court 
held on the preliminary 
question 
that 
the res-
pondent was a workman concerned in the industrial_ dispute pending be-
fore it and that his di··charge was in breach of s. 33 of the Act. 
On the question whether t11c action taken by .tltc_?· appellant. W'3S hit 
by s. 33 of the Act, 
,\ 
B 
c 
E 
HELD: (1) Section 
33(1)(b) bans the dischargi:: 
or punishment. 
whether by dismissal or otherwise. of a workman for misconduct con-
nected with a pending dispute \Vithout the express permiso::ion in writing 
G 
of the authority dealing with the pending proceeding. 
Section 33(2) (b) 
places a similar ban in reg:ird to matters not connected with the pendin~ 
dispute; but the employe:r is free, to discharge or dismiss a workman by 
paying wages for one month provided he applies to the authority dealing 
with the pending proceeding for approval of the action 
taken. 
Whether 
lhe ~ction is taken under'· 33(l)(b) ors. 33(2)(b), the ban is imposed 
bnly in regard to c.ction tokerr for misconduct whether corinected or un-· 
connected with the dispute. Unlike under s. 33(3) which gives a blanket 
R 
protection to 'protected workmen•, an employer is free to take. action 
against other workmen if it is not based orl any misconduct on their part. 
f617B-D, C-Gl 
!\ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
f 
G 
H 
AIR INDIA v: v. A. REBELLOW (Dua,. J.) 
60 7 
l2) ln the present case, on the fac,e of it, the language of the order· 
Jo~s not show th3t the respondent's services were terminated because of 
any misconduct. 
Prima· facie, therefore, the impugned order was not an 
order discharging Or punishing the respondent for any misconduct. r618A-· 
BJ 
( 3) Action under Reg. 48 can be validly tak•!n by an employer at 
his Sweet-will without assigning any reason, and he is not bound to disclose 
why 
he 
does not want to continue in service a particular employee. 
r620D-E1 
( 4) It is however open to the restbondent to urge that reliance on. 
Reg. 48 V.'as not bona fide and 'that it was a colourabl~ exercise of the 
right confe:rred by the Regu!ation, because, the form of .the order is not 
decisive and attending circumstances are open to consideration though th~ 
motive 
ftJr the order, if not n1alafi(le, is not open to question. f619H; 
6208-C] 
fVorknien o/ .St1dder Office, Cinnamara v. Afanagcment, [19711 II L.L.J. 
610, Chartered Bank, 
Bonibav v. Chartered Bank 
Emploxees' 
Union. 
[1960] l[ L.L.J.-
222 and Tcta Oil 
Mills Co. 
Ltd. v. 
Wori:rner, 
[

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.