1 RRN,J
WP No.4033 of 2019
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.4033 OF 2019
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: "...to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing the impugned Termination Letter in Ref.No.AIATSL/HRDSR/MAA/5625 dt.31.01.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, without following due process of law and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Termination Letter in Ref.
No.AIATSL/HRDSR/MAA/5625 dt.31.01.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages and pass...."
2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Security Agent on a merit selection basis under the fixed term contract engagement on 19.07.2010 for a period of three years from 20.07.2010 to 19.07.2013 by the 2nd respondent. The said contract was further renewed for another 2 RRN,J WP No.4033 of 2019 three years i.e from 20.07.2013 to 19.07.2016 and finally extended for another three years i.e from 20.07.2016 to 19.07.2019 vide fixed term contract engagement dt.18.07.2016. The petitioner initially rendered his services at Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport in Mumbai for a period of 8 years and was later transferred to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad.
2.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that he attended various training camps, conducted by the NCC Cadet of No.1 Maharashtra Air Sqn NCC, Mumbai-20 and was issued certificates dated 28.03.2011 and 16.12.2011. He also passed the basic AVSEC Training in the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Government of India and was issued a certificate dt.08.12.2011. Though the 2nd respondent appointed the petitioner, the petitioner worked for the 1st respondent and drew salary from the 1st respondent itself. The petitioner was working under the supervision of the Station Security Head i.e the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner while discharging his duties, got involved in an argument with the Duty Manager on 21.12.2018 while discharging his duties and the same was reported to the 4th respondent by the Duty Manager.
3 RRN,J
WP No.4033 of 2019
Subsequently, the petitioner was not allowed into service from 22.12.2018 and was informed that he stood de-resotered for the alleged incident occurred on 21.12.2018. The petitioner was further issued a termination letter dated 31.01.2019 by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner was given a cheque dated 31.01.2019 for Rs.26,660/- being the monthly emoluments in lieu of one month's notice. The petitioner was terminated from service in view of the breach of clauses 19 and 21 of the contractual employment agreement. Aggrieved by the termination letter issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. It has been contended by the respondents that the petitioner's services were liable to be terminated due to his continuous actions of disrespect, misbehaviour with senior officers, indiscipline, abusive nature and his actions were detrimental to the interest of the Company, including the assault on the Duty Manager on 21.12.2018 which was the ultimate cause for the 3rd respondent to issue the impugned termination letter. The respondents also contended that the petitioner was also in habit of mis-behaviour and indiscipline conduct while he was serving at the Mumbai Airport and that there are several 4 RRN,J WP No.4033 of 2019 incidents which took place. The respondents have recorded various reasons of the misconduct and bad behaviour of the petitioner which are as follows:
a. Misbehaviour and disobedience. b. False statements.
c. False allegations on seniors. d. Failure to submit/update leave card and attendance sheet on time.
e. Habitual filling of leave / off when not entitled. f. Habitual claiming/filling C/off and H/off without prior permission and proceeding on leave without permission.
g. False claim of Holiday Overtime (HOT). h. Refusal to perform overtime. i. Desertion of post.
Despite the respondents giving counselling to the petitioner, he failed to mend his ways and continued to go violate the terms of 5 RRN,J WP No.4033 of 2019 the agreement, as such, he was finally terminated from services. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner for his family, and the 1st respondent did not pay salary to the petitioner on time and the petitioner had to suffer a lot on several occasions due to such delay and had sent many e-mails with requests to release the salary which is on record and that the petitioner was forced to do overtime duty by the 4th respondent and the later did not use to sign on the petitioner's attendance sheet/leave card and upon questioning the same, the petitioner was harassed and subjected to abuse by the 4th respondent in order to provoke the petitioner. He further contended that the 4th respondent hatched a plan to see that the petitioner is removed from service and started creating quarrels between the petitioner and the authorities and also increased his work, and the petitioner was provoked by the Duty Manager at the instance of the 4th respondent and an 6 RRN,J WP No.4033 of 2019 argument broke out between the petitioner and Duty Manager and the Duty Manager abused the petitioner in filthy language. 5.1 Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned termination letter based on the alleged violation of Clauses 19 and 21 of the fixed term contract engagement dated 19.07.2010 as extended is not applicable for termination of the petitioner's service as the petitioner was neither involved in any kind of act which is detrimental to the company nor arrested by the police or authorities for involvement in any offence. He further contended that the 3rd respondent does not have any jurisdiction to issue the termination letter as the petitioner was appointed by the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner was not issued any show cause notice nor any enquiry was done and the petitioner was not allowed to explain himself nor defend his case. That the 2nd and 3rd respondents ought to have considered that the petitioner had put in 9 years long service and that the actions of the respondents are against the law and principles of natural justice.
5.2 Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the following judgments:
7 RRN,J
WP No.4033 of 2019
i) 2015(6) ALD 675;
ii) Order in W.A 1059/2017 dated 31.07.2017;
iii) 2013 (3) SCC 607 and iv) 2014 (5) ALD 670 (DB).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has contended that the actions of the petitioner were in breach of the terms and conditions of his engagement, as such, the contract of the petitioner was terminated by the 2nd/3rd respondent under Clauses 19 and 21 of the contract. She further contended that the continued action of indiscipline and inconsistent behaviour of the petitioner throughout his tenure with the respondents and the act of physical abuse and assault by him on the Duty Manager of Security.
6.1 Learned counsel for respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner was on overtime in the 2nd shift on 21.12.2018 and was allocated to man the Main Gate in MRO complex at around 14:55 hours, the petitioner deserted his post and entered the AEP section of the security department and picked up a quarrel and when the Duty Manager intervened, the petitioner first abused him and then physically assaulted him. The Duty Manager defended himself and later the security personnel 8 RRN,J WP No.4033 of 2019 handled the situation. Despite the respondents giving counselling to the petitioner, he failed to mend his ways and continued to go violate the terms of the agreement, as such, he was finally terminated from services. Department was detrimental to the interest of the company hence the respondents invoked the enabling clauses i.e clauses 19 and 21 of the contract, and their action was rational, fair and legal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that first to deal with the maintainability of the present Writ Petition owing to the present position of the respondents' Company. This Writ Petition was filed in February 2019 at that time when AIL was a Government company. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 27th January 2022, AIL was privatized by 100% of its shares being transferred to Palace India Pvt Ltd. As a result, AIL ceased to be a Government company. Article 226 confers jurisdiction on the high courts "to issue to any person or authority" orders or writs; therefore, the question of jurisdiction of a high court under Article 226 must be decided considering events subsequent to the filing of a writ petition up to the stage of issuance of a writ.
9 RRN,J
WP No.4033 of 2019
8. It is pertinent to mention here that when a subsequent or an intervening event during the pendency of a writ petition could result in the petitioner becoming disentitled to relief, viz. relief claimed being rendered redundant by lapse of time, or rendered incapable of being granted by the change in law, or being rendered inequitable because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of the judgment, or creation of third-party interests. It is, therefore, not an invariable rule that a writ petition has to be decided on the facts as were presented on the date of its institution. A circumstance of the present nature would count as an additional reason for the writ court to hold a petitioner disentitled to relief. The writ petition, although maintainable on the date it was instituted, has ceased to be maintainable because of the privatization of AIL which takes it beyond our jurisdiction to issue a writ or order or direction to it. To arrive at this conclusion, this Court is relied upon the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Mr. R.S. Madireddy Vs. The Union of India1 wherein it was observed as follows:
1
W.P. No.1770 of 2011 decided on 20.09.2022 10 RRN,J WP No.4033 of 2019
64. We may in this connection profitably take note of the enunciation of law in Beg Raj Singh (supra). The Supreme Court, while dealing with proceedings arising out of a writ petition, had the occasion to observe that: "7. *** The ordinary rule of litigation is that the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of commencement of litigation and the right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the petitioner entered the portals of the court. A petitioner, though entitled to relief in law, may yet be denied relief in equity because of subsequent or intervening events i.e. the events between the commencement of litigation and the date of decision. The relief to which the petitioner is held entitled may have been rendered redundant by lapse of time or may have been rendered incapable of being granted by change in law. There may be other circumstances which render it inequitable to grant the petitioner any relief over the respondents because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of judgment. Third-party interests may have been created or allowing relief to the claimant may result in unjust enrichment on account of events happening in- between. Else the relief may not be denied solely on account of time lost in prosecuting proceedings in judicial or quasi- judicial forum and for no fault of the petitioner. ***"
65. Perusal of the aforesaid excerpt would reveal some of the circumstances when a subsequent or an intervening event during pendency of a writ petition could result in the petitioner becoming disentitled to relief, viz. relief claimed being rendered redundant by lapse of time, or rendered Jt-WP.1770.2011+ incapable of being granted by change in law, or being rendered inequitable because of the balance tilting against the petitioner on weighing inequities pitted against equities on the date of the judgment, or creation of third-party interests. It is, therefore, not an invariable rule that a writ petition has to be decided on the facts as were presented on the date of its institution. A circumstance of the present nature would count as an additional reason for the writ court to hold a petitioner disentitled to relief.
11 RRN,J
WP No.4033 of 2019
9. For the reasons discussed above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of without granting any relief as claimed therein but with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
It is made clear that the time taken for disposal of the writ petition be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation if the petitioner seeks any remedy by instituting fresh proceedings.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J 20th day of January, 2023 BDR