Holding a passport is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In an order on Wednesday, Justice A P Shah of the Bombay High Court directed a cooperative bank to pay Rs 20,000 as costs to a petitioner for its high-handed action in asking immigration officials at the Chhatrapati Shivaji airport to impound her passport.Justice Shah slapped the costs on the Jan Kalyan Sahakari Bank after Usha B Hassija was stopped from embarking on a Lagos flight to meet her ailing son at the last minute by immigration officials. Apparently, the officials were working on a letter written by the special recovery officer, H N Kulkarni, with the Jan Kalyan Sahakari Bank which had claimed that since she owed the bank money, she could not be allowed to leave the country.The matter wad moved before Justice Shah last month, when he directed that that the passport be returned forthwith. Justice Shah had at that time recorded that the immigration officer's decision to impound the passport was ``high handed andarbitrary'' since ``the right to hold a passport was a citizen's fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution''. The matter was kept for final hearing.On Wednesday, state government pleader R V Govilkar appearing for the immigration officer stated that Kulkarni, the officer of the bank was at fault when he wrote a letter to the immigration officials directly. Kulkarni had written that he was a quasi judicial authority and had ordered that the woman not be allowed to embark the flight. Govilkar pointed out that when hundreds are in the queue for embarking, it was impossible for the officer to check the credentials of the letter writer as a quasi judicial body.Justice Shah then noted that the officer had exceeded his brief and had erred in the orders. He then proceeded to slap costs on the bank to the tune of Rs 20,000 to be paid to the petitioner. Hassija was directed to furnish an undertaking that she would be returning to the country within a stipulated period.While the bank had claimed that theamount of a couple of lakhs owed by Hassija was in an award passed by the cooperative courts, advocate Jay Bhatia appearing for Hassija countered that this award was being challenged before an appellate court.Unfair labour practices by pharma firmThe fifth labour court, Mumbai presided over by M G Choudhary has in two recent orders directed a pharmaceutical company, Fulford (India) Ltd, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough, USA to deposit the monthly wages of a medical representative Mukund More and held that the company had prima facie committed unfair labour practices.In doing so, the court disposed of an interim relief application filed by More under the amended MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 wherein he complained that the company had dismissed him without issuing any show-cause notice, charge-sheet or without conducting any domestic enquiry as required under the principles of natural justice. More who was dismissed on May 7, was represented by advocate A P Kulkarni.In its November 15 order, thecourt also gave More the liberty to withdraw his salary from the court and directed the company to pay him legal dues within a month. The company has been allowed to move an application for appointment of a court commissioner to hold a domestic enquiry into the reasons for More's dismissal.The court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the company that the amended act is not yet in force and the court has no jurisdiction on the complaint.According to the Sales Promotion Employees Association, this is the first complaint filed by a medical representative, pursuant to the MRTU & PULP Act being amended to include sales and medical representatives as well. The notification came into effect from 09-04-99 as published in an official gazette of April 20, 1999.In a press release, the association noted that nowadays, it is common among pharmaceutical companies to terminate the services of medical representatives without issuing any show-cause notice, charge sheet or holding any domestic enquiry oreven without seeking any explanation from the concerned medical representatives against alleged charges. Should the affected employee challenge it in court, these firms appeal that they should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in court.There are however, several high court decisions that in the absence of a show cause notice, chargesheet or no domestic enquiry before termination, the Labour Court is barred from giving opportunity to the company for the first time to conduct an enquiry before the court against the employee.
