P. H. KALY ANI versus M/S. AIR FRANCE CALCUTTA

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 15-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1913 
Jfrmici;cl Ciuncil 
Pa/Mi 
v. 
T.J. Jeseph 
1\!11dholkar J, 
1963 
Ftiru1ry 15. 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964]VOL. 
For these reasons we allow the appeals and set 
aside the orders of the High Court and quash the 
writs issued by it. 
There will, however, be no order 
as to costs as the respondents have not appeared. 
Appert.ls allowed, 
--~-
P. H. KALY ANI 
v. 
M/S. AIR FRANCE CALCUTT A 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HmAY.tTULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
J. C. SHAH JJ.) 
Indu•trinl 
Dispute-Di•misMl-1"dustrfol 
Disputes 
Act, 1917 (U of 1917), s. 33. 
The appellant was cl1arged with groS5 dereliction of duty. 
The appellant in answer to the charge sheet admitted the 
mistakes and contended that he was over-worked and that it 
was the duty of others also to check the load sheet aud balance 
chart prepared by him. 
Enquiry was held by the Station 
Manager to whom the appellant objected on the ground of 
bias. On the finding• of the enquiry the appellant was dis-
missed by the Regional Representative of the respondent com-
pany and was given one month's wages and was informed that 
the approval of the action taken was being sought from the 
Industrial Tribunal before whom some industrial disputes were 
pending. The order of dismissal was communicated to the 
appellant on \fay 30, and the application for apprornl was 
made the same day. An application under s. 33A was made on 
June 3, 1960, by the appellant challen.ging the ordtr of dismis-
sal. The appellant objected to the maintainability of the appli-
cation for approval but the Tribunal accorded approval to the 
action taken by the respondent and dismissed the application 
of the appellant under s. 33-A, on appeal by special leave. 
HeW,, that the application for approval was in accordance 
with the proviso of s. 33 and properly made. 
-
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
105 
The Strau; Borlrd .IJfanufacturing Co .. Ltd., Flahflranpur v. 
Gom'.nd, [1962] Supp. 3 S. C.R. 618, referred to. 
Held, further that in the absence of any positive action 
amounting to recognition of the appeJlant as a protected person 
by the respondent (and the appellant had produced no such 
evidence) he could not be held to be a protected workman for 
dismissing whom 
p1 evious 
sanction \Vas 
necessary under 
s. 33 (3). 
Held, further, that assuming that the Station l'vfanager 
who held the enquiry was biased though the order of dismissal 
was passed by the Regional Representative against whom no 
such allegation was madr, the Tribunal was entitled to go into 
the question whether the dismissal was justified on the evi· 
dence laid before it. 
Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen .. [1960] 1 S C.R. 32, 
referr< d to. 
HelC:, further, that the dismissal of the appellant did not 
amount to victimisation 
[Jehl, also that even if the do1nestic enquiry was defective 
provided that there is a prima facie case for dismissal and a 
bonafide conclusion is reached that the employee is guilty of 
misconduct, and if the Labour Court in dealing with the appli-
cation under s. 33 (2) and after considering for itself the evi-
dence adduced before it gives its approval it w.;uld relate back 
to \\'hen the e1nployer came to the conclusion after the e:nquiry 
that the dismissal is a proper punishment. 
. 
Jf /8. Sasa. Musa Sugar Works (P) Lt1l. v. Slwbrati Khan, 
[19.19] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 836, distinguished. 
JJiunagement of Ranipur Colliery v. Bhuban Singh, [1959:1 
Supp. 2 S C. R. 719, referred to. 
CrvrL APPELLATJ~ jumsnronoN : Civil Appeal 
No. 419 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the Awarrl dated 
June 22, l!J{l), of the Second Labour Court, West 
Bengal in Case No. 97/3:3A 0f 19f10. 
N. N. Keswani, for th: ilppellant, 
1963 
P.TI. Kalya11i 
v. 
M/s. Air France 
Calcutta 
1963 
P. ff_ lialyani 
v, 
M/s. Air FrQJZct 
CaicuttJ 
B'anch!:lo J, 
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
C. K. Dephtary, Solicitor-General of India and 
El. L. Anand for the respondent. 
196:t February 15. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was <lei ivered by 
WANCHOO J.-This appeal by special leave 
challanges the order of the Second Labour Court, 
West Bengal, relating to the dismissal of the appe-
llant, who was in the service of the respondent-
company. 
A charge-sheet was issued to the appe-
llant on April 23, 1960 under the signature of the 
Station Manager of the respondent-company. 
The 
charge-sheet contained two charges of gross dereli-
ction of duty inasmuch as the appellant had made 
mistakes in the prep

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