Karnataka High Court
M/S Jet Airways (India) Pvt Ltd vs Sri Prashant Rao on 25 September, 2025
-1-
WP No. 15526 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO. 15526 OF 2017 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) PVT LTD
SIROYA CENTRE, SAHAR AIRPORT ROAD,
ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 099.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HR
A.SAHANA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DHARMA TEJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PRASHANT RAO
C/O MR.V.GOVINDA RAO,
Digitally
NO.47/A, 1ST BLOCK, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
signed by THYAGARAJA NAGAR,
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K BANGALORE-560 028.
Location:
HIGH COURT
...RESPONDENT
OF
KARNATAKA
(SRI. PRASHANTH RAO/RESPONDENT (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED:13.1.2017 IN CR.NO.35/2009 AT
ANNEXURE-N TO THIS WRIT PETITION, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.08.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE D K SINGH J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
Mr. Prashanth Rao, - Respondent was appointed as
Customer Service Assistant on 23.10.1999 with M/s. Jet
Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd., now under liquidation. He had
undergone probation for a period of 6 months and was
thereafter posted in Customer Service Department of the
petitioner - company in Bangalore. He was confirmed as a
Customer Service Assistant with effect from 23.07.2000 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 dated
30.08.2008.
2. The respondent had challenged the said dismissal
order before the Central Government Administrative Tribunal-
Cum-Labour Court in C.R.No.35/2009. The Industrial Tribunal
by a detailed judgment and order dated 13.01.2017 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 held to be illegal and not justified. The Tribunal directed
the reinstatement of the respondent along with 50% of back
wages. The respondent was held entitled to continuity of
service and all other consequential benefits that he would have
received. The said Award is the subject matter of challenge in
this writ petition filed by the M/s. Jet Airways (India) Pvt. Ltd.
3. The learned Single Judge on 20.04.2017 passed an
interim order in the Writ petition, staying the operation and
execution of the impugned award dated 13.01.2017 passed in
C.R.No.35/2009, subject to the deposit of a sum of
Rs.13,00,000/- within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the
order. The said sum, if deposited before this Court, was
directed to be kept in fixed deposit for a period of 6 months
initially. It was also made clear that if the deposit was not
made within the stipulated period, the interim order would
stand vacated automatically.
4. In pursuance to the said interim order, the
petitioner - Company deposited a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- within
the time granted by the Court and the said sum is still lying in
the Court.
5. The respondent - Workman being unsatisfied and
aggrieved by the said interim order, filed the Writ Appeal
No.6108/2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. The
Division Bench vide its judgment and order dated 22.11.2017,
directed payment of 30% of the wages to the respondent
workman of his last drawn salary towards sustenance, including
the amount unpaid from the date of interim order passed by
the learned Single Judge on 20.04.2017. The petitioner -
Company was directed to pay last drawn wages until disposal of
the writ petition. Insofar as the amount deposited before this
Court in terms of the interim order dated 20.04.2017, it was
directed that the same should await the result of the writ
petition. The Registry was directed to put the sum deposited in
pursuance of the interim order in a fixed deposit for a further
period of one year with a direction to periodically renew the
said deposit till disposal of the writ petition. Thus, the Division
Bench upheld the interim order and disposed of the appeal as
stated hereinabove.
6. The present writ petition has been filed against the
impugned award dated 13.01.2017 in C.R No.35/2009. The
Tribunal had directed reinstatement of the respondent -
Workman with continuity of service in the employment of the
petitioner - Company with 50% back wages. Based on that, an
amount of 50% back wages was deposited by the petitioner -
Company in terms of the interim order dated 20.04.2017. 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 reported in 2025 (4) SCC 354
and the Official Liquidator has taken over the assets of the
petitioner - Company for its liquidation. In view of the aforesaid
development that the petitioner - Company is under liquidation,
the relief of reinstatement granted by the Industrial Tribunal
cannot be implemented inasmuch as now the petitioner -
Company is no longer carrying on any business and is under
liquidation. Therefore, the relief of reinstatement of the
respondent - Workman in the petitioner - Company has become
untenable.
7. Now, the question which remains to be decided is
the payment of 50% back wages and the said amount was
determined to be Rs.13,00,000/- in the interim order
20.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Before coming to the said question, it would be
appropriate to consider the merits of the case.
9. The Industrial Tribunal framed the following points
for consideration on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led
by the parties:
i. Whether the delay in raising the dispute
is fatal and as a result the same is liable for
rejection, as contended by the 2nd party i.e., the
employer?
ii. Whether the action of the 2nd
party/Management in dismissing the workman
Prashant Rao from service w.e.f 30.08.2008 is
justified and legal?
iii. Whether the workman proves that he is
entitled for the relief of reinstatement, continuity of
service and consequential benefits and also back
wages and to what relief, if any, he is entitled to
get?
iv. Whether the workman demonstrates
that the finding of the Enquiry being baseless and
perverse, necessitating interference of this
Tribunal?
v. Whether the workman demonstrates
that the punishment imposed against him, is
disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, as
against him?
vi. To what order or Award?
10. The impugned award would suggest that the
Tribunal has considered all evidence and submissions and has
come to a conclusion that the charges levelled against the
respondent- Workman were not proved. It was also held that
the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of the
principles of natural justice. The Tribunal was of the opinion
that on a careful scrutiny of the management witnesses and
materials available on record, the respondent - Workman would
not be held responsible for making the wrong entry of the fuel
figures. 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. With the efficacy of the limited
jurisdiction of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, we are of the considered view, that the
impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal does not
require an interference by this Court so far as the challenge to
the impugned award is concerned. We, therefore, dismiss the
writ petition and uphold the award passed by the learned
Industrial Tribunal.
11. The next question which would arise for
consideration before us is the relief which can be granted to the
respondent - Workman in view of the fact that the petitioner -
Company is under liquidation and it is not carrying on any
business.
12. On 23.07.2025 when this writ petition was listed,
we queried the respondent, who has appeared in person as to
whether he would be willing to receive Rs.13,00,000/- along
with the accrued interest in deposit, in pursuance of the interim
order dated 20.04.2017, towards full and final settlement of all
his claims. He expressed his willingness to accept
Rs.13,00,000/- along with the accrued interest in full and final
settlement of his claims. The order dated 23.07.2025 passed in
this writ petition reads as under:
"The respondent/party-in-person, when queried in the
peculiarities of the case, is categorical that though he would
be worse of, he would be wiling to receive Rs.13,00,000/- in
deposit along with the interest in full and final settlement of
all his claims and the respondent also states that he is making
this statement without prejudice to his case.
In the light of the afore, Sri. Somashekar, the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, is called upon to secure instructions
from the petitioner/Official Liquidator.
The office is directed to re-list this matter on
30.07.2025."
13. Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the official liquidator, has submitted that the said
amount of Rs.13,00,000/- deposited in the Court in pursuance
of the interim order dated 20.04.2017 cannot be released in
favour of the respondent - Workman. The respondent being
aware of the liquidation of the petitioner - Company ought to
have exercised his right and filed a claim as on the liquidation
commencement date. It is further submitted that the
respondent had filed a proof of claim for an amount of
Rs.63,441/- with the erstwhile resolution professional, of which
a claim for an amount of Rs.56,605/- was admitted by the
erstwhile resolution professional.
14. It is submitted that as per the Regulation 12(2)(c)
of the Liquidation Regulations read with Section 38 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short 'the IBC,
- 10 -
2016') whereby if a stake holder does not submit a claim
during the liquidation process, the claim submitted by such
stakeholder before the erstwhile resolution professional in
continuation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
(for short 'the CIRP') shall be deemed to be admitted under
Section 38 of the IBC, 2016. He further submits that
Rs.13,00,000/- along with interest accrued thereon deposited
by the petitioner - Company in pursuance of the interim order
passed by this Court on 20.04.2017 in this writ petition forms
part of the assets of the petitioner - Company and it is part of
liquidation assets as prescribed under Section 36 of the IBC.
This amount therefore, is for the benefit of the creditors of the
petitioner-Company and cannot be released in favour of the
respondent - Workman.
15. Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel
placing reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
the case of Siti Networks Limited Vs. Rajiv Suri reported in
2024 SCC ONLINE BOM 3550 submits that under the
provisions of Section 14(1) of the IBC, the moratorium on
enforcement commences on commencement of the CIRP and a
decree cannot be enforced once a moratorium has commenced.
Under the IBC, a decree holder is merely a creditor having a
- 11 -
claim. The amount owed under the decree would be subject to
the terms of the resolution plan that is approved pursuant to
the CIRP. If the CIRP were to fail, the decree-holder would be
one of the creditors, who would stand in a queue along with
other creditors for distribution of the assets of the corporate
debtor in liquidation proceedings, to discharge its claim.
16. The submission is that once the CIRP proceedings
have failed and the Supreme Court has ordered liquidation of
the petitioner - Company, the Tribunal's order even for the
payment of 50% of the back wages cannot be enforced and this
amount should be released in favour of the official liquidator.
17. 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
- 12 -
50% of the back wages as ordered by the Tribunal soon after
the award dated 13.01.2017 was passed.
18. 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. A party whose writ petition is dismissed,
cannot take advantage of its own wrong.
19. The Supreme Court, in the case of Amarjeet Singh
and others Vs. Devi Ratan and others reported in 2010(1)
SCC 417, explained the said principles at paragraphs 17 and
18, which reads as under:
"17. No litigant can derive any benefit from mere
pendency of case in a court of law, as the interim
order always merges in the final order to be passed in
the case and if the writ petition is ultimately
- 13 -
dismissed, the interim order stands nullified
automatically. A party cannot be allowed to take any
benefit of its own wrongs by getting an interim order
and thereafter blame the court. The fact that the writ
is found, ultimately, devoid of any merit, shows that a
frivolous writ petition had been filed. The maxim actus
curiae neminem gravabit, which means that the act of
the court shall prejudice no one, becomes applicable in
such a case. In such a fact situation the court is under
an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the
act of the court. Thus, any undeserved or unfair
advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction
of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of
litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage
on a suitor from delayed action by the act of the court.
(Vide Shiv Shankar v. U.P. SRTC, GTC Industries Ltd.
v. Union of India and Jaipur Municipal Corpn. v. C.L.
Mishra.)
18. In Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P. this Court
examined the similar issue while placing reliance upon
its earlier judgment in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO and
held that no person can suffer from the act of the
court and in case an interim order has been passed
and the petitioner takes advantage thereof and
ultimately the petition is found to be without any merit
and is dismissed, the interest of justice requires that
any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party
- 14 -
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be
neutralised."
20. This Court exercised equity jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. While granting interim relief,
thereby the Court exercised its discretionary power. If the writ
petition is dismissed and the interim order stands nullified
merging with the final judgment/order, this Court needs to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction in doing Ex debito justitiae for
mitigating the damage suffered by the respondent, against
whom the interim order was passed.
21. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment
the Supreme Court held as under
"19. In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal
Corpn. this Court observed that while granting the
interim relief, the court in exercise of its
discretionary power should also adopt the procedure
of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the
satisfaction of the court that in the event of his
failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the
plaint, he would adequately compensate the
defendant for the loss ensued due to the order of
injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. Even
otherwise the court while exercising its equity
jurisdiction in granting injunction is also competent
to grant adequate compensation to mitigate the
- 15 -
damages caused to the defendant by grant of
injunction. The pecuniary award of damages is
consequential to the adjudication of the dispute and
the result therein is incidental to the determination
of the case by the court. The court can do so in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in doing ex debito
justitiae mitigating the damage suffered by the
defendant by the act of the court in granting
injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding
with the action complained of in the suit. Such a
procedure is necessary as a check on abuse of the
process of the court and adequately compensate the
damages or injury suffered by the defendant by act
of the court at the behest of the plaintiff.
20. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.
this Court examined this issue in detail and held that
no one shall suffer by an act of the court. The factor
attracting applicability of restitution is not the act of
the court being wrongful or a mistake or error
committed by the court; the test is whether on
account of an act of the party persuading the court
to pass an order held at the end as not sustainable,
has resulted in one party gaining an advantage it
would not have otherwise earned, or the other party
has suffered an impoverishment which it would not
have suffered but for the order of the court and the
act of such party. There is nothing wrong in the
parties demanding being placed in the same position
- 16 -
in which they would have been had the court not
intervened by its interim order when at the end of
the proceedings the court pronounces its judicial
verdict which does not match with and countenance
its own interim verdict. The injury, if any, caused by
the act of the court shall be undone and the gain
which the party would have earned unless it was
interdicted by the order of the court would be
restored to or conferred on the party by suitably
commanding the party liable to do so. Any opinion to
the contrary would lead to unjust if not disastrous
consequences."
22. Thus, the parties should be placed at the same
position in which they would have been, had the Court not
intervened by its interim order. 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.
23. 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
- 17 -
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. Therefore,
we consider the judgment cited by Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa,
Senior Counsel in Siti Networks Limited Vs. Rajiv Suri
(supra), has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of
the present case for doing Ex debito justitiae, in exercising our
discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. We, therefore, direct the Registry to release a sum
of Rs.13,00,000/- along with accrued interest to the respondent
- Workman after due identification.
25. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
RKA
