Case: Workman of Pan American World Airways, K. Ramachandran Vs. Management of Messrs Pan American World Airways and Another

RANGANATH MISRA, J. Special leave granted 2. Appellant was in employment of the respondent having been recruited on September 1. 1964 and served the employer in various capacities from time to time and was promoted as Unit Manager, Reservation and Ticket Office, from December 1, 1980. Appellant was a member of the Pan American World Airways Employees Association which was formed in 1965 and came to hold various positions in that union from 1971. When the appellant was promoted as Unit Manager, the management objected to his continuation as a member of the union. He had been given the option by the management of revering back to his former post in case he wanted his union association to continue or to continue in the higher post and keep away from the union. Dispute started over his issue and ultimately the appellant was thrown out of employment in terms of letter dated August 30, 1982 which read thus In view of the attitude you have adopted in the last several months, it is not in interest of the company to retain you in service any more, accordingly it has been decided under Section 206 Clauses IV(B) of the Personnel Guide - India for Management/Supervisory and Confidential Staff to separate you from service on payment of one months salary in lieu of notice. A bank draft in amount of Rs. 7722 covering such salary in lieu of notice is enclosed herewith. Please note, therefore, that your services would stand separated immediately on service of this letter to you 3. At the instance of the union, the, matter was referred for adjudication as an industrial dispute. The maintainability thereof was disputed by the employer and the Labour Court found against the appellant. This appeal by special leave is directed against that order 4. The points raised in this appeal have been debated before us for quite some time. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that justice would be adequately done to the appellant if he is given the liberty to exercise the option indicated to him at an earlier stage, namely, of going back to the post he held prior to December 1, 1980. The management had agreed at that stage that after he reverted back to that post he could continue his association with the union

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. The points raised in this appeal have been debated before us for quite some time. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that justice would be adequately done to the appellant if he is given the liberty to exercise the option indicated to him at an earlier stage, namely, of going back to the post he held prior to December 1, 1980. The management had agreed at that stage that after he reverted back to that post he could continue his association with the union