IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.11.2008 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P.No.17380 of 1999 S.Kasthuri .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The Chairman, Airports Authority of India/ National Airports Division, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi. 2. The Member (P & A), Airports Authority of India/ National Airports Division, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027. .. Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent in No.AAI/NAD/M/39-1(2)/EH, dated 17.8.1999 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to permit the petitioner to report to duty in khadi-handloom/cotton dresses of the same shade/colour issued by her Department instead of silk/synthetic material. For petitioner :: Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi For respondents :: Mr.C.Godwin for R3 ***** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R ''Charkha Chala Chala ke lenge, Swarajya lenge" (by spinning we will get our freedom). This slogan chanted by the masses of India during the colonial rule in our country has been put to a mockery by the respondents by issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, an employee of the Airports Authority of India, has come forward with this writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondent to permit her to report for duty in Khadi-handloom/cotton dresses of the same shape/colour issued by the Department instead of wearing the dress made of silk/synthetic material. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 04.8.1973 under the Director General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi and was posted to work in the Regional Office at Chennai. During her career in the Civil Aviation Department, she was further promoted as a Senior Clerk on 21.11.1985. Thereafter, the Civil Engineering Department was separated and formed into the National Airports Authority of India by the National Airports Authority Act, 1985. The workmen belonging to the senior division were sent on deputation to the National Airports Authority of India with effect from 01.6.1986 with the same position and status. Thereafter, on being given an option, those employees were made the employees of the National Airports Authority of India with effect from 02.10.1989. The petitioner's post was subsequently re-designated as the Senior Office Assistant. 4. From the year 1994, the employees were made to wear uniforms and the uniform prescribed was either synthetic or silk or polyster sarees. There is no rule prescribing a particular type of cloth to be worn by an employee. For the first time, during August 1996, the petitioner was asked to attend office in her uniform, as she was wearing khadi/handloom cotton dresses and and khadi chappals. It is stated that from her childhood she was inspired by the life and principles of Gandhiji. As a mark of respect to his sufferings, she had taken an oath to wear only khadi or handloom dresses throughout her life. The petitioner neither collected her uniform sarees from the stores nor claimed any allowance in lieu of uniform. She also had not collected any blouse or skirt material or the shoes supplied by the respondents. 5. The petitioner sent a requisition letter dated 08.8.1996 to exempt her from wearing the uniform prescribed and permit her to continue wearing khadi or handloom dresses of the same shade or colour prescribed by the Department. As she did not get any reply, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ she continued to attend office in her own dress. However, by an order dated 12.8.1999, the third respondent directed her to wear the uniform prescribed by the Airports Authority while on duty as otherwise it will be viewed as the most indisciplined behaviour and serious lapse on the part of the official and action will be initiated against her under the provisions of NAA (ECDA) Regulations, 1988. 6. The said letter may be extracted below:- ''It has been brought to the notice that Kum.S.Kasturi, Senior Office Assistant is not wearing the uniform prescribed by the Airports Authority of India while on duty. This is considered as most indisciplined behaviour and a serious lapse on the part of the official. In this regard, attention of Kum.Kasturi is drawn to Regulation 5 (24) of NAA (ECDA) Regulations, 1988, according to which, non-wearing of uniform while on duty by any employee of the Authority constitutes a serious misconduct and attracts initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Kum.S.Kasturi, Senior Office Assistant is, therefore, directed to wear the uniform while on duty failing which further action, as may deem fit under the provision of NAA (ECDA) Regulations will be initiated. Further, she will not be allowed to attend her duties without wearing of uniform". 7. This was communicated to the petitioner with a covering letter dated 13.8.1999 and a further reminder that she should attend the office in proper uniform. The petitioner challenges the said communication in this writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 27.10.1999 and notice was issued to the respondents. In spite of the third respondent having entered appearance, no counter affidavit has been filed justifying their action. 8. The short question that arises for consideration is that whether the respondents having prescribed a uniform which includes particular shade and colour for the dress, can still insist the type of linen in which it should be worn and whether an employee of a public sector corporation wearing a uniform made of khadi cloth can be punished. 9. Mahatma Gandhiji, the Father of our Nation, said that by spinning our own yarn, we will help create more employment. If the cotton made in our country is taken to Lancashire (England) and brought back for sale in this country and if we refuse to buy it, the British will suffer. Thus he made the people to take the ''swadeshi pledge", by which the people of India were made to take https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the oath that they will buy things made only in our country. ''Boycott British Goods" became the slogan of colonial India. 10. In fact, Mahatma Gandhiji wrote extensively on the use of khaddar and devoted large space in his newspaper ''Harijan". While writing an Article in ''Harijan", dated 04.7.1936, he clarified regarding certain wrong reportage of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's speech quoting that khadi will continue till independent India achieves complete industrialization. Gandhiji repelled such unsubstantiated statement by stating that in future, India may become an industrialized country or not but for that reason, no intelligent person will give up wearing khadhar. 11. Rather than appreciating the principled stand taken by the petitioner, it is unthinkable that the respondent should come up with an unjustified reference to a socalled service Regulation. It is one thing to state that the respondent has power to prescribe a uniform even dictating colour and shade for the cloth that one should wear but cannot dictate the type of linen which is neither suited to our country nor it reflects the ethos of our independence movement. 12. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 which undoubtedly applies to the third respondent establishment had prescribed Model Standing Orders (MSO). In case no certified standing orders have been framed for an establishment by virtue of Section 12-A, such model standing orders will apply pending framing of such standing orders. The model standing order sets out misconducts which make an employee liable for disciplinary action. Model standing order 14(3)(a) only makes it a misconduct if there is any disobedience of a lawful or a reasonable order of a superior. Whether preventing an employee from wearing a uniform made of a khadi cloth can be stretched to the level of misconduct is unthinkable in the post-independent India and such an action on the part of the respondent can never be condoned. While it can be said that prescription of an uniform can be a reasonable order of a superior, but that by itself cannot mean that the employer can have the right to prescribe even the type of cloth a person should wear. 13. Article 51A(b) of the Constitution of India clearly stipulates a Fundamental Duty of a citizen to include that every citizen of India has a duty to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom. The petitioner instead of being appreciated was unnecessarily being hounded out by the respondent employer without any legal, constitutional or other justification. Compelling her to wear the uniform made of synthetic or silk or polyster varieties is nothing but a sartorial despotism. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. The great Indian Jurist Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer wrote a remark in the Register kept by the janitor when he was denied admission for not wearing the formal attire, in the following words:- ''I came as a Guest for the Dinner but was stopped by the janitor at the MCC entrance because I was not wearing Western Costume, the only permissible apparel according to the MCC culture. Alas! Swaraj has made the country free but has stopped at the door steps of the MCC. I return without dinner but as a proud Indian". (Ref: V.R.Krishna Iyer – A Living Legend – Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd. 2000 Edition) 15. After the said episode, in the same book he wrote as follows:- ''We are still colonial in our soul, in our mind, in our conscience and our clothes. West is Best is still the hallmark of the elite Indian culture. This is not a singular or single incident but a harbinger of recolonisation fast making entry into our economic space, cultural space and creamy club space. Beware! On the gleaming wings of science and technology and the seeming blessings of hedonist materialism Indian Freedom and Cultural Heritage may be damned and robbed – a process of value alienation which will be the culmination of a new ontological bastardisation". ''Currently, Gandhiji and his swadesi is allergy to the Indian Yankee glitterati who may wreath his bust on ritual occasions but in life style sentence him to Quit India". 16. In the absence of any legal right on the part of the respondents to prevent the petitioner from wearing the uniform made up of khadi cloth, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly it will stand set aside. The writ petition will stand allowed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. It should be paid by the third respondent to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. js Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Chairman, Airports Authority of India/ National Airports Division, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi. 2. The Member (P & A), Airports Authority of India/ National Airports Division, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027. 1 cc to Mr.C.N.G.Ezhil Arasi, Advocate, SR.61928 1 cc to Mr.C.Godwin, Advocate, SR.61657 sp (co) dv/12.11. W.P.No.17380 of 1999 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/