LexINDIAN AIRLINES LID. versus PRABHA D. KANAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. INDIAN AIRLINES LID. A v. PRABHA D. KANAN NOVEMBER I 0, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] B Service Law. Termination-Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations, C 1994-Regulation 13-Provision for termination of service without holding enquiry-Employee on flight duty arrested by custom authorities for unauthorisedly carrying currency-Termination of services invoking the said regulation-Employee discharged in criminal proceedings-Termination and validity of service regulation challenged-Held, regulation setting out circumstances under which the services of an employee can be terminated by D way of discharge without holding enquiry-Regulation does not confer arbitrary power hut contains inbuilt safeguards-Regulation provides for simpliciter discharge-Termination is not on the grounaof misconduct but lack of confidence having regard to the specific contingencies specified in the regulation-Requirements to comply with principles of natural justice E held not practicable-Regulation is not arbitrary or discriminatory and is intra vires-However, in the facts, held, regulation not applicable to emmp/oyee appointed prior to amended regulation coming into force-. Employee holding post of trust and confidence and doubt on the integrity of person shaking confidence of employer-Jn the facts, termination not set F aside but employer directed to pay to employee eight years' salary towards both back wages as well as for loss of employment in future to subserve the ends of justice-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 14, 21 and Article 311 (2) proviso (b)-Air Corporation Act, 1953-Sections 44 and 45. Respondent joined service of the appellant - Corporation as an Air G Hostess and was later on promoted as Deputy Manager in Inflight Service Department On 18.6.2002, the respondent was put on duty in Flight operating on sector Mumbai - Hyderabad - Bangalore - Sharjah. However, the connecting flight from Hyderabad to Sharjah via Bangalore was called back immediately after take off at the request of the Customs Authorities. Respondent was asked H 1027 1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. A to deplane by Custom Authorities and she was arrested for carrying Indian currency amounting to Rs. 22,07,978/- along with foreign currency, viz., 180 UAE Dirhams, 133/4 Kuwaiti Dirhams, 3 Bahraini Dirhams and 20 Nepali Rupees. Respondent is said to have made a confessional statement before the Custom Authorities in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act that she had B been carrying unauthorisedly the said amount Husband of respondent was also arrested on the basis of her statement. Respondent was released on bail on 3. 7.2002. The services of respondent were terminated invoking Regulation 13 of the Indian Airliness (Flying Crew) Service Regulations by the Board of Directors of the Corporation by order/later dated 9.8.2002 with immediate effect. Respondent filed writ petition challenging her termination and also C the constitutionality and I or validity of Regulation 13. High Court held said Regulation 13 as ultra vires but instead of reinstatement of respondent directed monetary compensation be paid by corporation to respondent equaling to six years' salary on the basis of her last drawn basic pay and dearness allowance towards both back wages as well as for loss of employment in future D and also directed payment of amount refunded by respondent towards provident fund and gratuity with interest. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, both the parties have appealed to this Court. Appellant-Corporation contended that High Court committed a manifest error in holding Regulation 13 to be unconstitutional insofar as it failed to E take into consideration that the same does not confer any unguided or arbitrary power; that Regulation 13 does not speak of misconduct but only . speaks of justifiable lack of confidence having regard to the specific contingencies specified therein; that an assessment of such contingencies is required to be made by the highest available authority; and that High Court p failed to take into consideration the history of the precedents of this Court as also how the said Regulation 13 was amended. Respondent contended that Regulation of Air India was not saved by Section 8 of the 1994 Act; that Regulation 13 is arbitrary as no reason is required to be assigned as to which of the provisions had been applied; that G when an extmordina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.