HC issues show cause notices for contempt to top AI officials

A former employee of Air India, Jagdish Gursahani was suspended on February 6, 1990 on charges of alleged smuggling which is not yet proved in court. He was dismissed from service on March 16, 1996 after a departmental inquiry indicted him. Gursahani worked as a technician in the Engineering Department. AI management moved the National Industrial Tribunal (Central) to get their dismissal action approved. NIT rejected their approval application on the grounds of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law and on merits but allowed AI to lead further evidence to prove charges. Gursahani has filed a review application to correct the error on the face of the order. This is pending for further hearing.

During suspension, Gursahani was given a fixed Subsistence Allowance (SA) without any yearly increments which is paid to suspended employees. He filed an application before the Labour Court (Central) claiming arrears of the increments for the period between suspension and dismissal. On June 10, 1999 the court awarded him an amount of Rs 2,56,956/-.

However AI immediately challenged this order by a writ petition in the High Court. Justice R M Lodha on February 4, 2000 modifying NIT’s order directed AI to compute and pay the difference in SA payable to Gursahani during suspension after adjusting amount already paid as SA. The court also ordered to pay Gursahani without discrimination benefits of settlements given to other employees.

In his contempt petition, Gursahani said that while AI promised to comply with the order, it did a volte face and deducted taxes and other entitlements. Gursahani was paid Rs 1.62 lakhs in "full and final settlement" which he accepted under protest. Gursahani pointed out that the difference of Rs 1.34 lakhs payable after fresh computation not only violates the HC order but also AI’s circular of October 22, 1991 issued by Industrial Relations General Manager S Narayan Murthy. In the circular, Murthy referring to a Supreme Court judgement has cautioned the Accounts Department against "deductions whether statutory or non-statutory" from SA. Murthy clarifies, "Even though subsistence allowance is not salary within the definition of Payment of Wages Act, the Supreme Court has held that if any deduction is made from the subsistence allowance, it will be in violation of principles of natural justice and on that ground alone Supreme Court had set aside the action taken by the concerned employer." Yet the illegaldeductions were made while recomputing his entitlement, Gursahani states.

Interestingly during proceedings for admission of contempt, AI’s counsel submitted a compilation of 367 documents demonstrating that since 1992 the company has been effecting tax deductions from SA of hundreds of suspended employees running into huge amounts. However, sources say, these violations by the management of their own circular may benefit dismissed employees whose cases are pending before NIT. Gursahani appeared in person against a team of AI counsels including E P Bharucha, S K Talsania, Zubin Kamdin, K B Swamy and Jyoti Saigal instructed by Bhasin and Company. The next date for final hearing is fixed on August 18, 2000.