I.D.Dua, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave and the appellant, the Air-India Corporation, Bombay assails Part I of the Award with corrigendum, dated April 28, 1967, given by the Central Government Labour Court Bombay, on the complaint dated October 16, 1965 made by Shri V. A. Rebellow, respondent No. 1 in this Court (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The complaint was originally filed by the complainant before the National Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, (Mr. Justice G. D. Khosla, retired Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court) in the Industrial Dispute Reference No. 1 of 1964 but was later transferred to the Central Government Labour Court and numbered as Application No. LCB 39 of 1965.
(2.) The impugned award merely dealt with the preliminary points raised by the appellant that the complainant was not a workman concerned in the aforesaid industrial dispute and that there was no breach of Section 33 of the Act with the result that the complaint under Section 33-A of the act was incompetent. The Labour court held that complainant to be a workman concerned in the aforesaid industrial dispute pending before the National Industrial Tribunal on the date of his dismissal and that the dismissal was not a discharge simpliciter but in breach of the provisions of Section 33. On this finding his complaint was held to be maintainable. The two questions canvassed in the present appeal are (1) whether the complainant was a workman and was as such concerned in the aforesaid disputed (Industrial Dispute Reference No. 1 of 1964) and (2) whether the termination of his service was a dismissal as alleged by him or was a mere termination of service not amounting to dismissal. Board facts necessary for understanding the controversy may now be stated:
(3.) The order which was challenged as amounting to the complainant's dismissal reads: "CONFIDENITAL Dated June 19, 1985 (Thru:The Commercial Manager, Cargo) Dear Sir, It has been decided to terminate your services, which we hereby do with immediate effect. You will be paid one months' salary in lieu of notice. 2. Please arrange to return, as early as possible, all items of corporation's property in you possession to enable us to settle your accounts. 3. Your accounts will be settled after checking your commitments. Yours faithfully, Air India Sd/- S. K. Kooka Commercial Director" On July 16, 1965 the complainant acknowledged the above letter terminating his services with immediate effect and requested for reinstatement because according to him there was nothing to warrant such summary termination of his services. This is what he wrote: "............In this connection I have to state that I have served the Corporation for a period of over nine years and to the date of terminating my services, there is nothing on record which warrants that my services should be terminated summarily. Hence it is requested that I be reinstated and thereafter if the Management is of the opinion that I have done something against the interest and the fair name of the Corporation, I be charged accordingly, given an opportunity to explain my conduct and after everything else if I am found guilty, action taken against me as the management deems fit. With the experience I have with the management's policy towards its employees, I am confident that I will never be deprived of the opportunity I have asked for and more so in the light of the faithful service I have rendered.............." The following reply was sent to the complainant on September 8, 1965: "********** 2. I have to inform you that your services were terminated on payment of 30 days' salary in lieu of notice, in accordance with Rule 48 of the Air- India Employees' Services Regulations." Regulation 48 of the Air-India Employees' Services Regulations which was described as Rule 48 in the letter of September 8, 1965 reads as under: "CHAPTER VIII Cessation of Service ********** 48. Termination:The service of an employee may be terminated without assigning any reason, as under: (a) of a permanent employee by giving him 30 days' notice in writing or pay in lieu of notice; (b) of an employee on probation by giving him 7 days' notice in writing or pay in lieu of notice; (c) of a temporary employee by giving him 24 hours' notice in writing or pay in lieu of notice. Explanation:For the purposes of this Regulation, the word "pay" shall include all emoluments which would be admissible if he were on privilege leave." In the complaint under Section 33-A of the Act it was alleged by the complaint that the order dated June 19 1965 smacked of vindictiveness or unfair labour practice and that his alleged termination was a cloak for punishing him. No facts were, however, stated in support of this averment. According to the averments in this complaint, Regulation 48 postulates the existence of some reason for the termination of service and since the Corporation had not disclosed any reason for the termination of the complaint's service it was requested that the Corporation be directed to disclose the reason, if any, for the termination of his service. The real grievance of the complainant, it appears, was founded on the construction of Regulation 48 as is clear from the following averments in Para 7 of the complaint: "The complainant submits that on a reasonable construction of the said Rule, the Opposite Party is bound to disclose the reason if any for the said termination in the present proceedings. The complainant submits that any other construction would be unreasonable and make the said rule itself unreasonable, illegal, void as also in contravention of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 311 of the Constitution of India and is therefore void and inoperative.";