In a writ petition filed by M/S Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Jet Airways) against an order dated 13-01-2017 by the Central Government Administrative Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Industrial Tribunal), before the Karnataka High Court, a Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T upheld the impugned order and restored the parties back to their position as on the date of the impugned award, when Jet Airways was not under liquidation for granting a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the respondent as relief.
The respondent was appointed as Customer Service Assistant on 23-10-1999 with Jet Airways. He completed a 6-month probation period and was thereafter confirmed as a Customer Service Assistant with effect from 23-07-2000 with a monthly gross salary of Rs. 5700/-. The respondent faced disciplinary proceedings, and as a result, he was dismissed by order dated 30-08-2008.
The respondent workman challenged the dismissal order before the Central Government Administrative Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (Industrial Tribunal). By the impugned order, the Industrial Tribunal held that the proceedings against the respondent were against principles of natural justice and that Jet Airways had failed to prove the alleged misconduct by the respondent. Thus, reinstatement of the respondent was directed along with 50% back wages.
An interim order was passed on 20-04-2017 in the writ petition, which stayed the operation and execution of the impugned award, subject to the depositing of Rs. 13,00,000/- within 4 weeks by Jet Airways. The company complied with the order. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, whereby Jet Airways was directed to pay 30% of the respondent’s wages, including the amount unpaid from the date of the interim order, until the writ petition is disposed of. Further, the Registry was directed to put the sum deposited by Jet Airways in a fixed deposit for a period of one year and to periodically renew the deposit till the disposal of the writ petition. Thus, the interim order was upheld.
The Court noted that Jet Airways was under liquidation and that the Official Liquidator had taken over the assets of the company and thus, stated that the relief of reinstatement could not be granted to the respondent as the same had become untenable.
The Court perused the impugned award and noted the opinion of the Tribunal whereby the respondent could not be held responsible for making a wrong entry of the fuel figures. The Court said that the impugned award was well-reasoned and that all evidence had been considered in detail before arriving at the said conclusion.
The Court stated that the impugned award did not require an interference and thus, the writ petition was dismissed while the award by the Industrial Tribunal was upheld.
While considering the relief that could be granted to the respondent since Jet Airways was under liquidation, it was mentioned that the respondent was asked if he would be willing to receive the amount deposited by the company along with the accrued interest in deposit toward full and final settlement of his claims, to which he gave an affirmative response.
The Official Liquidator submitted that the said amount could not be released to the respondent and that he should have filed a claim petition on the date the liquidation commenced. It was also stated that the respondent had filed a proof of claim for Rs. 63,441/- with the resolution professional of which a claim for Rs. 56,605/- was admitted. Further, it was submitted that the amount submitted formed a part of the liquidation assets as per Section 36 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Official Liquidator also contended that once the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had failed and the Supreme Court had ordered the liquidation of the company, the Tribunal’s order even for payment of 50% of the back wages could not be enforced and that the amount should be released in favour of the liquidator.
The Court stated that the respondent’s claim in pursuance of the impugned award had crystallized on 13-01-2017 and that 50% of the back wages were already deposited before the Court after the interim order dated 20-04-2017 was passed. Further the Court said that the respondent should have been paid 50% of the back wages as ordered by the Tribunal soon after the impugned award was passed.
The Court said that a well-settled principle that Actus curiae neminem gravabit meaning that ‘an act of the Court shall prejudice none’ shall apply when a writ petition is dismissed in which an interim order is granted, to the extent that the interim order merges with the final order. The Court stated that a party whose writ petition is dismissed, cannot take advantage of its own wrong.
Further, the Court said if the writ petition is dismissed and the interim order stands nullified merging with the final judgment, the Court needs to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in doing Ex debito justitiae to mitigate the damage suffered by the respondent. After perusing various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court stated that the parties should be placed at the same position in which they would have been, had the interim order not been passed.
Further, the Court said that if the judicial verdict matches with the Tribunal’s order, the injury caused by the act of the Court should be undone and the gain, which the party would have earned would be restored.
It was held that since the writ petition has been dismissed, the parties must be restored back to their position as on 13-01-2017 i.e. the date of the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. It was stated that on the said date Jet Airways was not under liquidation and the CIRP had not commenced.
Thus, the Registry was directed to release the sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- along with interest to the respondent after due identification.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. P.P. Hegde, Mr. Dharma Tej
For Respondent – Party-in-person
