Case: Saudi Arabian Airlines Vs. Salim Gandhi &amp; Others

action as no witness form I.A.A.I. was examined and secondly by not reporting the matter to I.A.A.I. Under the circumstances the learned Judge held that the action taken against the present complainant must be a hasty and it is covered under item 1 (f) of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and therefore, the company is liable to withdraw form the same by giving work to the complainant. The learned Judge felt that if too I.A.A.I. takes any action against the complainant and others, the company make the fresh action against the present complainant. The learned Judge observed that the security staff of I.A.A.I. authority would have been the best evidence in the matter and therefore the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse.11.The order of the labour Judge was confirmed in revision by the learned Member of the Industrial Court by his order dated 22.12.1994. The revisional court merely referred to the entire paragraph 13 of the labour courts judgment and stated that in its opinion what has been held and discussed by the Labour Court is correct.12.We find it impossible to affirm to reasoning of the learned Judge of the labour court. It is relevant to notice that the specific charge against the complainant was that the complainant on January 25, 1992 (which date was later on changed to 24th January 1992) which the complainant was on duty at about 10.30 hours, Shri Subhash Ambekar the driver of the jeep No. MFC 506 of Ambassador Sky Chef was returning form Bay 41 to Saudia Cargo Staff in the said jeep. The policeman on duty at that gate stopped the jeep, as the gate no. 4 was not mentioned in the airport pass. The complainant requested the policeman (security person) to allow the jeep to proceed and that the complainant would have the pass rectified. Thereafter the complainant forcibly removed the pass alongwith the acrylic sheet from the jeep and told the driver to follow him to Saudia Cargo Office. In the office the complainant removed the acrylic sheet and placed the pass on the type-writer, typed gate no. 4 on it and returned the same to Shri Ambekar. The Complainant further told him to avoid going through gate no.4 on that dayi.e. on January 25, 1992 and asked him to use the gate no. 4 from the next day on-words. The chargesheet mentions that thus the complainant falsified the Airport pass of the said Jeep. The chargesheet further mentions that the aforesaid acts of the complainant amounts to serious acts of misconduct as per the model standing orders i.e. (i) froud or dishonesty in connection with employers business and (ii) commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior on the premises of the establishment. It is relevant to notice that the Saudi Arabian Airlines came to know about the misconduct of the complainant only upon the receipt of the letter from M/s. Ambassador Sky Chef reporting the incident. In the inquiry the said driver was examined. In the inquiry said Ambekar driver has stated as under :"After going out through gate no. 4 Mr.Salim Gandhi took me to the cargo office where he opened the Acrylic sheet by opening the scews with the screw driver, removed the Airport pass and typed gate no. 4 on the said pass and then placed the said Airport pass in between the acrylic sheet and tightened the screws".A zerox copy of the said pass was kept on record. It is an admitted position that the gate number which was put is erased by M/s. Ambassador Sky Chef and therefore there was no visible no. 4 on the said pass. The other witnesses who were present in the office of the Saudi Arabian Airlines situated at Sahar Airport in Cargo Section who have deposited to have seen the complainant with screw driver in his hand, Obviously they being colleagues, they would not go any further.13.On the basis of material on recorded we find it impossible of appreciate the reasoning or the conclusions of the learned Judge of the labour court. When a responsible employee of the Saudi Arabian Airlines, is proved upon evidence of Shri Ambekar, driver of the jeep, to have forcibly removed the security pass from the jeep belonging to M/s. Ambassador Sky Chef and when in fact he added the gate no. 4 and returned it to the driver and gave instructions to the driver to avoid gate no. 4 on that day but start using the same from the next date, dishonest intention and also serious misconduct of tampering with the security pass issued by the International Airport Authority of India, is clearly made out against the complainant. We fail to understand how the fact that the driver of the jeep is not proceeded against or the complaint is not lodged with the Airport Authority of India, has any relevante at all so for as the misconduct against the complainant is concerned. In our opinion the evidence before the Enquiry Officer was clinching and very clearly proved very serious misconduct and the entire reasoning of the learned Labour Judge is absolutely incorrect. The labour court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of very cogent and convincing evidence in that behalf. The revisional court has merely affirmed the finding recorded by the labour court.14.Shri Ganguli learned counsel appearing for the employee also submitted that the punishment of dismissal is rather harsh. We do not agree. Apart from the fact that the misconduct proved i.e. tampering with and falsely inserting additional gate number in the security pass issued by the International Airport Authority, is extremely serious matter, deserving punishment of dismissal, we are also of the view that the law is settled that once the misconduct is proved in the departmental inquiry and the punishment awarded is one that could be awarded for such misconduct, then courts of law would not interfere on the quantum of punishment.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]12.We find it impossible to affirm to reasoning of the learned Judge of the labour court. It is relevant to notice that the specific charge against the complainant was that the complainant on January 25, 1992 (which date was later on changed to 24th January 1992) which the complainant was on duty at about 10.30 hours, Shri Subhash Ambekar the driver of the jeep No. MFC 506 of Ambassador Sky Chef was returning form Bay 41 to Saudia Cargo Staff in the said jeep. The policeman on duty at that gate stopped the jeep, as the gate no. 4 was not mentioned in the airportthe basis of material on recorded we find it impossible of appreciate the reasoning or the conclusions of the learned Judge of the labour court. When a responsible employee of the Saudi Arabian Airlines, is proved upon evidence of Shri Ambekar, driver of the jeep, to have forcibly removed the security pass from the jeep belonging to M/s. Ambassador Sky Chef and when in fact he added the gate no. 4 and returned it to the driver and gave instructions to the driver to avoid gate no. 4 on that day but start using the same from the next date, dishonest intention and also serious misconduct of tampering with the security pass issued by the International Airport Authority of India, is clearly made out against the complainant. We fail to understand how the fact that the driver of the jeep is not proceeded against or the complaint is not lodged with the Airport Authority of India, has any relevante at all so for as the misconduct against the complainant is concerned. In our opinion the evidence before the Enquiry Officer was clinching and very clearly proved very serious misconduct and the entire reasoning of the learned Labour Judge is absolutely incorrect. The labour court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of very cogent and convincing evidence in that behalf. The revisional court has merely affirmed the finding recorded by the labour court.14.Shri Ganguli learned counsel appearing for the employee also submitted that the punishment of dismissal is rather harsh. We do not agree. Apart from the fact that the misconduct proved i.e. tampering with and falsely inserting additional gate number in the security pass issued by the International Airport Authority, is extremely serious matter, deserving punishment of dismissal, we are also of the view that the law is settled that once the misconduct is proved in the departmental inquiry and the punishment awarded is one that could be awarded for such misconduct, then courts of law would not interfere on the quantum of punishment.