Vinayak Gopi Reddy, vs Air India
2023 Latest Caselaw 274 Tel

                                   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:

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