Case Note & Summary
The litigation between Air India Limited (appellant) and Ms. Shashikala Jatav (respondent) has been ongoing for two decades. The respondent was employed as a Trainee Air Hostess with Air India on 17th February 1983. She applied for earned leave from 1st June 1988 to 1st July 1988, and subsequently applied for extensions. She became pregnant and was granted maternity leave up to 10th May 1990. After the expiry of maternity leave, she was asked to resume duty by 10th October 1990, but she did not resume, citing the need to look after her infant child and a second pregnancy. This led to a departmental enquiry under the Model Standing Orders (Central) for unauthorized absence for more than 10 days, which amounted to wilful insubordination. The respondent did not participate in the enquiry, which proceeded ex parte, and she was dismissed from service. The dismissal order was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Air India appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's order was perverse and that the dismissal was justified. The court noted that the respondent had been absent without authorization and that the employer's decision was not disproportionate. The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal order was restored.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Maternity Leave - Unauthorized Absence - The respondent, an Air Hostess, was dismissed for remaining absent without leave after expiry of maternity leave. The court held that the dismissal was not perverse and the Industrial Tribunal's order of reinstatement was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Model Standing Orders - Wilful Insubordination - Absence without leave for more than 10 days amounts to wilful insubordination under Model Standing Orders. The respondent's absence was unauthorized and she did not participate in the enquiry. (Paras 3-5) C) Service Law - Proportionality - The punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate given the long unauthorized absence and the nature of the service (Air Hostess). The court restored the dismissal order. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of an Air Hostess for unauthorized absence after expiry of maternity leave was justified and not perverse.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of the Industrial Tribunal is set aside. The dismissal order passed by the appellant is restored.
Law Points
- Maternity leave
- unauthorized absence
- wilful insubordination
- Model Standing Orders
- disciplinary proceedings
- dismissal
- perversity
- proportionality
