"An Act Of The Court Shall Prejudice None”: Karnataka High Court Rejects Jet Airways’ Plea Challenging ₹13L Back Wages To Dismissed Workman

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition of Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. and directed the payment of Rs. 13 lakhs as back wages to its dismissed workman.

The Court directed such payment to the dismissed workman even after the liquidation of Jet Airways ordered by the Supreme Court this year.

A Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T. remarked, “The pendency of the writ petition cannot act to the prejudice of the respondent. Once we dismiss the writ petition, we hold that the rights got crystallized on the date of the award i.e., 13.01.2017 for payment of 50% of the back wages and those back wages were already deposited. But for the interim order, the same could not be paid to the respondent. It is well settled principle in equity that the maxim Actus curiae neminem gravabit "an act of the Court shall prejudice none" shall apply where a writ petition is dismissed, in which an interim order is granted, inasmuch as the interim order merges with the final order.”

The Bench added that a party whose Writ Petition is dismissed, cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

Senior Advocate P.P. Hegde and Advocate Dharma Tej represented the Petitioner, while Prashanth Rao-Respondent appeared as party-in-person. Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa appeared for the official liquidator.

Factual Background

The Respondent was appointed as the Customer Service Assistant in 1999 with Jet Airways company, now under liquidation. He had undergone probation for a period of 6 months and was thereafter posted in Customer Service Department of the company in Bangalore. He was confirmed as a Customer Service Assistant with effect from July 23, 2000 on a monthly gross salary of Rs. 5,700/-. The Respondent later faced disciplinary proceedings and on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service vide order in 2008. He had challenged the said dismissal order before the Central Government Administrative Tribunal Cum-Labour Court.

The Industrial Tribunal held that the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Respondent were in violation of the principles of natural justice and also held that on a careful perusal of entire material on record, the employer could not prove the alleged misconduct committed by the Respondent. Thus, the punishment order of dismissal from service was held to be illegal and not justified. The Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the Respondent along with 50% of back wages. He was held entitled to continuity of service and all other consequential benefits that he would have received. The said Award was the subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition filed by Jet Airways before the High Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “The Jet Airways is under liquidation in pursuance of the judgment. passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Consortium of Murari Lal Jalan and Florian Fritsch and Another and the Official Liquidator has taken over the assets of the petitioner - Company for its liquidation.”

The Court said that since the company is under liquidation, the relief of reinstatement granted by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be implemented inasmuch as now the company is no longer carrying on any business and is under liquidation and therefore, the relief of reinstatement of the Respondent has become untenable.

The question which remained to be decided was the payment of 50% back wages and the said amount was determined to be Rs.13,00,000/- in the interim order passed by the Single Judge.

“The impugned award is well-reasoned award and the Tribunal has considered all evidence in detail while arriving at the said conclusion. We have not been shown anything which would demonstrate that the findings of the Tribunal are either perverse or against the record”, observed the Court.

The Court was of the view that the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal does not require an interference so far as the challenge to the impugned award is concerned.

The next question which arose for consideration was the relief which can be granted to the Respondent in view of the fact that the Petitioner company is under liquidation and it is not carrying on any business.

“We have already dismissed the writ petition insofar as the challenge to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is concerned. The dismissal of the writ petition will relate back to the date of its institution i.e., 10.04.2017. Thus, the respondent's claim in pursuance of the impugned award got crystallized way back on 13.01.2017, 50% of the back wages had already deposited before this Court in pursuance to the interim order dated 20.04.2017. But for the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent should have been paid 50% of the back wages as ordered by the Tribunal soon after the award dated 13.01.2017 was passed”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court further remarked that the parties should be placed at the same position in which they would have been, had the Court not intervened by its interim order and when, at the end of the proceedings, the Court pronounces its judicial verdict which would match with the Tribunal order, the injury, if any, caused by the act of the Court, should be undone, and the gain which the party would have earned unless interdicted by the Court's order, would be restored or conferred on the party by suitably commanding/directing the liable party.

“As observed earlier, but for the interim order dated 20.07.2017 the petitioner would have been paid 50% of the back wages along with the interest soon after the award was passed by the Tribunal on 13.01.2017. As we have dismissed the writ petition, the parties must be restored back to their position as operating on 13.01.2017 i.e., the date of the award passed by the Tribunal. On the said date the company was not under liquidation and the CIRP, had not commenced”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the Registry to release Rs. 13 lakhs along with accrued interest to the Respondent.

Cause Title- M/s Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Prashant Rao (Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 15526 OF 2017)

Click here to read/download the Order