SAHARA AIRLINES LIMITED Vs. PHILIP C ABRAHAM
LAWS(KER)-2005-12-15
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on December 20,2005

SAHARA AIRLINES LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
PHILIP C.ABRAHAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

INDAMER COMPANY P.LTD. V.BARINDE [REFERRED TO]
BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. BURMA SHELL MANAGEMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in civil, aviation business, is challenging Ext. P13 Award by which the Labour Court, Ernakulam, has declared that petitioner has illegally removed the first respondent from service with direction to the petitioner to reinstate him with full backwages but leaving freedom to the petitioner to retrench him after following the procedure contemplated under the I. D. Act.
(2.)I have heard Senior Counsel Sri B.S. Krishnan appearing for the petitioner and Senior Counsel Sri Pathrose Mathai appearing for the first respondent.
(3.)The facts stated by the petitioner, most of which are admitted, are the following: The first respondent who was in the Indian Air Force, after retirement served some other companies and thereafter he was appointed by the petitioner as Aircraft Maintenance Engineer on 11-8-1999. He was above 58 years of age when he joined the petitioner company and his appointment was on one year training/ probation on a monthly salary of Rs. 36,000. After completion of one year, first respondent was given annual increment of Rs. 1000 and was given some special increments thereafter. The first respondent was licensed to maintain Boeing 737-200-series aircrafts which were operated by the petitioner at the time of taking him in service. After 737-200-series planes became old and outdated and were grounded, petitioner company acquired more advanced Boeing 737 planes of 400 and 700 series for which the first respondent was not qualified to do servicing or maintenance. However, he was given an opportunity to acquire technical training in maintenance of the more advanced planes acquired by the petitioner and accordingly the first respondent was sent for training. However, unfortunately first respondent did not qualify in the training and could not get the licence for maintenance of the more advanced planes operated by the petitioner. Consequent upon withdrawal of operation of 200 series of Boeing 737 aircrafts, petitioner did not require the services of the first respondent, who did not have the licence to certify the air worthiness of any of the planes operated by the petitioner. Therefore petitioner wrote to the first respondent requesting him to get relieved from service offering one month's extra salary in addition to settlement of dues. The first respondent however opted to resign from the services of the petitioner and he accordingly sent Ext. P3 letter of resignation on 13-12-2000. Thereafter the first respondent accepted the benefits offered by the petitioner and got relieved with immediate effect. However, after about eight months from resignation and settlement of accounts, the first respondent complained to the Regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi stating that he was illegally terminated from service by the petitioner, and therefore sought for conciliation. Since first respondent was residing in South, he requested for transfer of the conciliation proceedings to an Officer in the South which the Government of India granted. Accordingly, conciliation was held by the Regional Labour Commissioner, Ernakulam, who after considering the case reported failure to the Government and the Government in turn referred the Industrial Dispute for decision by the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The Labour Court, Ernakulam, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that first respondent was a "workman" and he was illegally terminated from service by the petitioner and consequently the Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate him with full backwages, but with freedom to retrench him thereafter by following the procedure prescribed under the I. D. Act. It is against this Award that the petitioner has approached this Court and during the pendency of the W. P. C., this Court granted stay against enforcement of the Award.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.