She was carrying Rs22 lakh in cash, besides Arab currency in her luggage
Indian Airlines airhostess Prabha D Kanan, who had around 23 years of experience on the Mumbai-Bangalore-Hyderabad-Sharjah air route, was axed eight years back as she was carrying Rs 22 lakh in cash, besides Arab currency in her luggage. Kanan got a major relief on Tuesday as the Supreme Court has directed the national carrier to pay her eight years of salary, besides gratuity and provident fund.
The judges upheld provision 13 of the IA regulations that empowers its Board of Directors to take a decision in public interest that can’t be challenged in a court of law. Kanan had been acquitted in the customs and foreign exchange violation cases and discharged in the criminal case as well.
On a customs' call, her Sharjah bound flight was grounded in Mumbai four years ago and sleuths recovered huge currency in her luggage.
Her husband was also arrested. Aggrieved by the decision of the directors to sack her, she had moved the Delhi High Court that ordered payment of six years of salary to her.
“This should be the appropriate compensation for the termination of her services and loss of employment considering that she has about 10 years of service hereafter,” it had added.
IA challenged this order and its counsel Arun Jaitley and Lalit Bhasin said the verdict was faulty. Kanan was holding a 'Red Airport Entry Pass'. It gives unrestricted access to all civil airports in India. Its holder can fly to other countries on the network of Indian Airlines.
Any doubt on the integrity of the person holding such a post of trust and confidence may shake the confidence of the employer, the counsel added.
“If such activities are permitted, the same in a given case may provide for risk not only to the aircraft but also to a large section of people. The subjective satisfaction of the Board of Directors was based on the confession she made and the evidences collected by the Directorate of Enforcement,” Jaitley and Bhasin pleaded.
They also argued that her acquittal or exoneration in the cases “may not be of much significance as the validity of the order must be judged having regard to the fact situation.”
But Kanan’s lawyer objected to it. He argued that though she had made confession but the same was retracted. She was not found guilty during the trial and also in the departmental adjudicating proceedings. Thus, she shouldn't have been sacked.
A Bench of Justices S B Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari held that Directors could exercise the
power in the “interest of the company.”
“In a case of this nature, requirements to comply with principles of natural justice may not be practicable,” they said.
They explained that “keeping in view the situational changes and particularly, outsourcing of the sovereign activities by the State, this Court has been expanding the scope of judicial review. … The doctrine of unreasonableness has now given a way to doctrine of proportionality.”
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}