This petition seeks reinstatement for a petitioner dismissed from Air India years ago. The bench held the petitioner lacks locus standi to reopen matters finally decided by the Apex Court and that the plea is unknown to service jurisprudence. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vrd 1 WP483/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.483 OF 2011
Prem Kumar Upadhaya v/s Air India Ltd. and anr.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Mr R.V. Govilkar with Ms Ujwala Sawant for Petitioner. Mr S.K. Talsania, Sr. Counsel with Ms Kavita Anchan i/b M/s M.V. Kini and Co. for Respondents.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 01ST OCTOBER 2014.
P.C. :-
India. The departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Admittedly, the Petitioner was dismissed after conclusion of the departmental enquiry by order dated 15th September 1995. Approval Application filed by the Air India was rejected by an order dated 28th November 1998. The Respondent – Air India filed Writ Petition No.2507 of 1998. It was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 24th February 2000. Letters Patent
vrd 2 WP483/11
Appeal No.298 of 2000 was preferred by the Respondent – Air India. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that by consent, the Appeal came to be disposed off by an order dated 18th April 2000. In the meanwhile, reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act was made. The Industrial Court passed an award on 14th August 2004.
in service and other consequential reliefs. The learned counsel
vrd 3 WP483/11
for the Petitioner submits that there are number of cases where employees working for Air India were charged for serious misconduct and in spite of there being convincing evidence against them, and they being convicted by the Courts, they were reinstated in service. On the similar lines, the Petitioner claims that he shall also be reinstated. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, considering the gravity of misconduct committed by other employees, the Petitioner's misconduct is not that grave for which the Petitioner was dismissed from employment. The learned counsel submits that the Respondent – Air India shall frame some guidelines and if they have such guidelines, they must disclose as to what are the parameters weighing with the Respondents while punishments are imposed on the employees and / or they are being reinstatement.
vrd 4 WP483/11
no locus to raise the issues and pray for reinstatement with other consequential benefits. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petition is misconceived and the same be dismissed.
vrd 5 WP483/11
Petitioner that the Petitioner is out of job. We are therefore not
imposing costs.
( B.P. COLABAWALLA J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL J. )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could interfere with the dismissal order of a civil servant or employee under its writ jurisdiction after the matter has been finally decided by the Apex Court on merits.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to raise issues regarding non-distinction in punishment when the issue has already been adjudicated upon by the highest judicial authority.
Whether this Court can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to reinstate a petitioner whose petition was filed in person and dismissed on the ground being immaterial to the subject matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prem Kumar Upadhaya
Air India Ltd.
NARESH H. PATIL
B.P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
