Decided on June 13,1996



- (1.)The Court : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) by consent of parties we proceed to finally decide the appeal after dispensing with the paper book and all other formalities and treating the same as on the day's list.
(2.)This appeal at the instance of Indian Airlines Limited and others is directed against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30th April, 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the decision taken by the appellant to withdraw the letter dated 25th November. 1994. The petitioner-respondent before us is Senior Traffic Superintendent in the Indian Airlines and is posted at Calcutta since the year 1991. It appears that certain matters in dispute were referred to the National Industrial Tribunal. Bombay for adjudication between Indian Airlines and its employees. initially the petitioner-respondent claimed to be the President of the Union of employees which was not a party to the aforesaid adjudication. However, by an order dated 25th November, 1994 the Deputy General Manager, Commercial. informed the Deputy General Manager. Personnel, that a decision has been taken to retain the petitioner respondents at Calcutta till the finalisation or closing of the adjudication proceedings before the National Industrial Tribunal. It was further informed that the petitioner-respondent being on the top of the list for transfer to outstation he will have to go on transfer according to stipulation even if he was over 55 years of age by that time. It appears that certain members of the recognised Union protested against the letter referred to above. According to them by this letter the management of the Indian Airlines had treated the employee with uneven hands. It further appears that on such representations the management of Indian Airlines took a decision to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994 on January, 1996. It further appears that before the decision could be taken by the management of Indian Airlines the petitioner-respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction that the respondent-appellant be prohibited from withdrawing the letter dated 25th November. 1994. Initially the teamed judge while entertaining the writ application passed ad-interim order. Subsequently the writ petition has been allowed. It is against this order that the appellants have come up before us.
(3.)The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in quashing the decision is patently erroneous inasmuch as mere representation by the employee of the rival union to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994 cannot be construed as a pressure on the management and the view taken by the learned Single Judge in quashing the decision to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994 is patently illegal.

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