Delhi High Court - Orders
Col. (Retd) Rama Krishna Sareen vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 January, 2022
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh
$~1 to 3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 58/2020
COL. (RETD) RAMA KRISHNA SAREEN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr Setu Niket, Ms Esha Mazumdar,
Ms Salonee Keshwani and Ms Avani
Kaushal, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms
Saveena and Mr Arihant Jain, Advs.
for UOI/R-1, 2 & 4.
Mr Puneet Taneja, Ms Laxmi Kumari,
and Mr Manmohan Singh Narula,
Advs. For R-3.
+ LPA 60/2020
COL. (RETD) RAMA KRISHNA SAREEN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr Setu Niket, Ms Esha Mazumdar,
Ms Salonee Keshwani and Ms Avani
Kaushal, Advs.
versus
PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr Puneet Taneja, Ms Laxmi Kumari,
and Mr Manmohan Singh Narula,
Advs.
+ LPA 61/2020
COL. (RETD) RAMA KRISHNA SAREEN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr Setu Niket, Ms Esha Mazumdar,
Ms Salonee Keshwani and Ms Avani
Kaushal, Advs.
versus
PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : Mr Puneet Taneja, Ms Laxmi Kumari,
and Mr Manmohan Singh Narula,
Advs.
LPA 58/2020 & connected matters page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.01.2022
11:32:30
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 27.01.2022 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. These are appeals directed against the common judgment of the learned single judge dated 11.09.2019. The impugned judgment of the learned single judge arises from an award rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal [in short, "CGIT"] dated 14.02.2014.
2. Mr Setu Niket, who appears on behalf of the appellant in the above- captioned appeals, says that the CGIT pronounced its award concerning the following aspects:
(i) Whether or not the appellant was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [in short "ID Act"].
(ii) Whether this was the case of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act, or as contended by the contesting respondent i.e., Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. [in short, "PHHL"], a case of termination on account of misconduct.
(iii) The relief that ought to be given to the appellant.
2.1. Mr Niket says that, although the CGIT ruled in favour of the appellant insofar as the first two aspects are concerned and held that he was a „workman‟ under the Act and that he had been retrenched, however, while ruling on the third aspect concerning relief, the same was denied to the appellant by holding that his services had been terminated on account of misconduct.
LPA 58/2020 & connected matters page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:30.01.2022 11:32:30 2.2. Mr Niket says that it is in this backdrop, not only did the appellant file a writ petition [i.e., W.P. (C.) 4041/2014] against the aforementioned award, but PHHL also approached the court by way of a writ petition [i.e., W.P.(C.) 1613/2015]. Furthermore, Mr Niket says that the appellant filed a second writ petition [i.e., W.P.(C.) 5396/2014] assailing the inquiry report of DGCA dated 22.04.2013, which contained stigmatic observations against the appellant.
2.3. Mr Niket says that the aforementioned inquiry report, with regard to the incident i.e., the helicopter crash, was prepared without examining the appellant.
2.4. It is obvious (as it appears to us) that both the appellant and PHHL are aggrieved by the aforementioned award dated 14.02.2014, passed by the CGIT.
3. Therefore, prima facie in our view, the matter requires a revisit by the CGIT.
4. Furthermore, Mr Rajesh Gogna, learned CGSC, who appears on behalf of UOI/DGCA in LPA No. 58/2020, also needs to take instructions in the matter as to whether the observations made against the appellant in the report dated 22.04.2013 can be expunged, as his stand [ i.e., Mr Gogna‟s stand] before us is that the said report was prepared for internal purposes. 4.1. To be noted, the learned single judge, in any event, has not taken into account the aforesaid report in reaching the conclusion he has, in the impugned judgment.
5. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents in the above-captioned appeals.
LPA 58/2020 & connected matters page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:30.01.2022 11:32:30 5.1. Mr Rajesh Gogna accepts notice on behalf of UOI/DGCA i.e., respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 in LPA No.58/2020.
5.2. Mr Manmohan Singh Narula accepts notice on behalf of PHHL in the above-captioned appeals.
6. Mr Gogna will revert with instructions, as indicated above, on the next date of hearing.
7. List the captioned appeals for directions on 21.03.2022.
8. In the meanwhile, Mr Niket will once again furnish copies of the case files to Mr Narula, albeit via e-mail, in the course of the day.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
JANUARY 27, 2022/aj
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
LPA 58/2020 & connected matters page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PREM
MOHAN CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:30.01.2022
11:32:30