Dismissed

Yogeshwar Raj v. Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2006WP/2934/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal order on recall of dismissed workmen. The Court held the underlying approval application under Section 33(2)(b) IB was unnecessary due to Supreme Court precedents, quashing the order.

What did the court decide?

Approval application deemed unnecessary; impugned order quashed.

Yogeshwar Raj Vs Air India Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2006) — LawSathi Research

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

O.O.C.J.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2934 OF 2004

Yogeshwar Raj.

... Petitioner.

V/s.

Air India Limited & Anr. ... Respondent.

¶9

Mrs. S.V. Kher i/b RMG Law Associates for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. J.S. Saluja and Mr. Gajanan Kadam i/b. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶12

13TH DECEMBER, 2006.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The order of the Industrial Tribunal arises upon

¶15

an application under Section 33(2) (b) of the

¶16

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In paragraph 2 of the

¶17

order, the Tribunal has observed as follows :-

¶18

"	This application ha	s been filed	before
this	Tribunal owing	to the fact	that
Reference	NTB-1 of	1990 is pending	before
this	Tribunal. Both	the parties	concede
the	point that the	pendency of NTB-1	of
1990	is likely to	affect the	service
conditions	of the wor	kman. They do	not
dispute	that Company	cannot, but file	the
application	for approval	in the	cases
involving	the orders	of dismissal as	a
consequence	of domestic enquiry to make
them legally	effective."

¶19

:2:

¶20

2.		In Air India Ltd.	V/s.	Vishal	Capoor
(2005)	13	Supreme Cou	rt	Cases	42,	the	Supreme	Court
held	that	the dispute	th	at	was pe	nding	before	the
Tribunal	in	NTB-1/1990	did	not	relate	to	Air	India
and	its	workmen but	to	Ind	ian	Airlines	and	its

¶21

workmen. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court

¶22

observed as follows :-

¶23

" Th	e dispute which	was pending before	the
Tribunal	in Reference	No.NTB 1 of 1990	did
not	relate to a	dispute between the	First
Appellant	and its	workmen. It related	to
a	dispute between	Indian Airlines and	its
workmen	basically	on the question	whether
the	latter were enti	tled to the same	terms
and	conditions of	service as the e	mployees
of	the First Appel	lant. The award	which
has since	been made on the reference	by
the Tribun	al also records :

¶24

"	This		refere	nce	cannot		cover	any
industrial		dispu	te	between	Air		India	and
its	work	men	as	the	order	of	the	Central
Governm	ent	is		confined	to		the	dispute
between workmen.	(Indian) "	Airlines	and	its

¶25

In view of the observations of the Supreme

¶26

Court,		it is	n	ow	not	in	dispute	betw	een	the	parties
that	it	was	not	ne	cessary	for	Air	India	to	file	an
approval		applicat	ion	in	NTB	1	of	1990	which	did	not

¶27

:3:

¶28

pertain	to any	dis	pute	betw	een	Air	India	and	its
workmen.	This	pos	ition	has	sin	ce	been	followed	in
two	Judgments of		learn	ed	Singl	e	Judg	es of	this
Court.	The fir	st	Judgm	ent	is	a	Judg	ment dated	13th
October	2005 of Mr.		Just	ice	S.K.		Shah	in Air	India
Limited	v/s. Ani	l	R.		Jos	hi	in	Writ	Petition
No.2671	of 2002	and	the	se	cond	is	a	Judgment	dated
14th	October 2005	of	Mr.		Just	ice	F.i.	Rebello	in

¶29

Air India Limited v/s. Ram Naresh Singh in Writ

¶30

Petition No.2296 of 2003.

¶31

In these circumstances, both the Counsel fairly accept the position that it was not necessary

¶32

for Air India to move an approval application in NTB

¶33

1 of 1990.

¶34

5.		In	the	circums	tances,		the	approval
application		upon		which the	impugned		Judgment	and
Order	dated		6th	August 2004	is bas	ed	shall	stand
disposed	of		in	view of the	finding	of	this	Court
that	it	was	not	necessary f	or the	ma	nagement	of Air
India	to	m	ove	an applicat	ion for		approval	under

¶35

Section 33(2)b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶36

:4:

¶37

6.	T	he impugned order	dated 6th	August 2004	of
the	Industrial	Court doe	s not	in	the circum	stances
survive	before	this Court.		It has	been stated	that
the	Petition	er has	already	institu	ted a sub	stantive
Writ	Petition	(No.1876	of 20	01) to	challenge	the
order	of	dismissal.	It	is	clarified,	while
disposing	of	the Petition,	that	this	Court has	had
no	occasion	to have	regard	to the	merits of	the

¶38

rights and contentions of the parties which fall for

¶39

decision in Writ Petition 1876 of 2001.

¶40

The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Yogeshwar Raj v. Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogeshwar Raj v. Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bombay Gas Company Ltd. Vs M/S.Havish S.Phadke and Anr.

Kamgar Suraksha Union Vs M/S. High Profile Creation and Ors.

Girish Y.Bamne Vs Narendra H.Waghani @ Sopariwala

Prakash B. Jadhav Vs Bajaj Electrical Ltd.

Mayaram Zuri Varma Vs the New Great Eastern Spg. Wvg. Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Satyanarayan R. Dubey and 3 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.