Air India Express Ltd. & Ors. v. Capt. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1940** **WA.No. 796 of 2018 IN WPC. 1991/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1991/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-02-2018** ## **APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:** **-----------------------------------** **1 AIR INDIA EXPRESS LTD 2ND FLOOR, AIRLINES HOUSE, 113, GURUDWARA, RAKABGUNJ ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2 CHIEF OF HUMAN RESOURCES AIR INDIA EXPRESS LTD., GANDHI SQUARE, DH ROAD, KOCHI - 682 016.** **3 CHIEF OF OPERATIONS OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT, 1ST FLOOR, OPERATIONS BUILDING, OLD AIRPORT, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI - 400 029.** **BY ADVS.SRI.NANDAKUMAR E.K. (SR.)** **SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:** **-------------------------------** **CAPT. GURDARSHAN KAUR SANDHU STAFF NO.76002, AIR INDIA EXPRESS LTD., GANDHI SQUARE, DH ROAD, KOCHI - 682 016.** **BY SRI.M.V.BOSE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **SKK** ## C.T. RAVIKUMAR & MARY JOSEPH, JJ. ========================= W.A. No.796 of 2018 ========================= Dated this the 09[th] day of April, 2018 ## J U D G M E N T ## C. T. Ravikumar, J. The captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1991/2018. The respondents therein are the appellants. The respondent herein/the writ petitioner was a Captain under the first respondent Air India Charters Ltd. (AICL). She was appointed as such as per Ext.P1(a) order dated 28.07.2011 with effect from 26.03.2011. As per Ext.P1 letter dated 25.01.2017, she was appointed as Commander by the Chief of Human Resources Department viz., the second respondent, in the Air India Express Limited, having its Head Quarters at Kochi. While working so, she submitted resignation letter dated 03.07.2017. Going by Ext.P3, the guidelines relating to resignation, notice period is six months. The writ petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 letter of resignation in terms of the provisions under Ext.P3. Before the expiry of the said notice period, she submitted Ext.P6 dated 18.12.2017 expressing her desire to withdraw the resignation with immediate effect and to continue in the service of the W.A. No796 of 2018 2 company. On its receipt, as per Ext.P8 dated 04.01.2018, she was informed that her request for withdrawal could not be acceded to as the competent authority had already accepted her letter of resignation as per Ext.P5. It is, in the said circumstances, that the aforementioned writ petition was filed by the respondent/the writ petitioner challenging Exts.P5 and P8. She _inter alia_ prayed for a declaration that she is eligible and entitled to continue in service, with all service benefits, without any break in service, with assignment of flight duty, etc. Evidently, the appellants herein/the respondents therein resisted the claims and contentions of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge had considered the contentions in the light of various decisions on the said subject and passed the impugned order quashing Ext.P5 letter and holding that she should be deemed to have been continuing in service without any break with all benefits. The appellants were directed to allow her to rejoin duty with immediate effect and also to disburse pay and allowances due to her without any further delay. The respondents herein are aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. There is no dispute regarding the basic facts. The writ petitioner was appointed W.A. No796 of 2018 3 as captain as per Ext.P1(a) order dated 28.07.2011 and the said order was issued on behalf of the first appellant by the third appellant. Later, as per Ext.P1, dated 25.01.2017, she was appointed as Commander by the second appellant. The head quarters of the second appellant situates in Kochi. It was while working as Pilot in Command that she submitted Ext.P2 letter of resignation dated 03.07.2017, in terms of the provisions in Ext.P3. Indisputably, the petitioner sought for withdrawal of Ext.P2 letter of resignation before the expiry of the period of six months from the date of its submission. In Ext.P5, though it is stated is that the competent authority had already accepted her resignation she would be released from service only on the expiry of the notice period of six months from the date of the letter of resignation. We will now proceed to consider the various contentions raised, bearing in mind the aforementioned undisputed and indisputable facts. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants had pointedly raised the question of territorial jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge had overruled the said objections and entertained the writ petition. It is submitted that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of lacking territorial W.A. No796 of 2018 4 jurisdiction. The basis for the said contention is that the writ petitioner's home base was at Mumbai and that all along she was reporting only before the third appellant viz., the Chief of Operations, whose office is in Mumbai. It is their further case that the decision to accept her resignation was also made by the competent authority viz., Chief of Operations from Mumbai. Shortly stated, according to them, the integral part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Mumbai and therefore, this Court was lacking territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In reply to the contentions the respondent herein/the writ petitioner submitted that Ext.P11 news item and Ext.P7 notifications were invited for recruitment to various posts in Mumbai, Delhi and Chennai and as per the said notification, applications were to be submitted before the second respondent whose office situates in Kochi. This situation was highlighted by the writ petitioner to canvass the position that the corporate head quarters of the first appellant continued to be at Kochi. That apart, she asserted that the second appellant is the appointing authority and the head quarters of the appointing authority is at Kochi. It is also submitted that out of the 7,000 flying hours of her flying experience 6,000 hours were from Kerala. Taking into account such rival contentions on the said question the learned Single Judge considered W.A. No796 of 2018 5 the question of maintainability of the writ petition. To canvass the position that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction, the appellants had relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in _**Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan** [2014 (4) KLT 798]._ Essentially, it was contended in the light of the said decision that since the integral part of the cause of action had arisen in Mumbai this Court got no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The learned Single Judge had declined to accept the contentions. It was found that the question posed for consideration in Viswanathan's case was whether in a case the orders impugned are passed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition could be maintained merely because such orders were served or communicated to the petitioner concerned while he/she was in Kerala. The learned Single Judge had also taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India** [2004 (6) SCC 254]_ . It was held therein that a writ petition would lie at the place of Original authority or at the place of Appellate Authority. The Apex Court was considering a case where the appellant company which was having its registered office at Mumbai filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, challenging the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security W.A. No796 of 2018 6 Interest Act, 2002, under which proceedings were initiated against it by Bhopal branch of State Bank of India. It was held that passing of legislation by itself would not confer any such right to file a writ petition unless a cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Court concerned. In the light of certain indisputable and undisputable facts, we are of the view that we need not delve into that question any further. Admittedly, Ext.P1(a) order appointing the petitioner as Captain was issued by the third appellant on behalf of the first appellant and the office of the third respondent situates in Mumbai. At the same time, after its issuance Ext.P1 letter dated 25.01.2017 was issued to the writ petitioner by the second appellant from Kochi. The second appellant, viz., the Chief of Human Resources of the Air India Express Ltd. is having his head quarters at Kochi. The writ petitioner had accepted the appointment made under Ext.P1, whereby she was appointed as a Pilot in Command. It is, thus obvious that at the time of putting the resignation she was bound by the new terms and conditions contained in Ext.P1 dated 25.01.2017, which was issued by the second appellant who got his head quarters at Kochi. In Ext.P1 it is given atop it as hereunder:- _“Corporate Headquarters : Gandhi Square, D.H. Road, Kochi - 682 016 Tel.0484-2350173.”_ W.A. No796 of 2018 7 Merely because Ext.P1(a) dated 28.07.2011 was issued earlier by the third respondent on behalf of : Air India Charters Limited the petitioners are not justified in contending that this Court was lacking territorial jurisdiction. In the circumstances, as obtained above, we do not find any reason to hold that the learned Single Judge had committed an error in deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction or regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. 4. The further contention raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the first appellant had accepted the resignation considering the 'no-so-satisfactory service record' of the writ petitioner which was intimated to her as per Ext.P5 correspondence on 02.09.2017. It is submitted that Ext.P5 would reveal that prior to the expiry of the notice period the letter of resignation submitted by the writ petitioner was accepted, though it would be effective only from the date of expiry of six months from the date of Ext.P2. In short, the contention is that merely because of the period of notice, viz., six months from the date of Ext.P2 was not over as on the date on which she submitted the letter seeking withdrawal of the resignation, in view of Ext.P5 letter issued by the third appellant, the learned Single Judge ought not to have found that the letter of resignation was available for withdrawal. A perusal of the W.A. No796 of 2018 8 impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Single Judge had taken note of the binding decisions on the right to withdraw the resignation by an employee who submitted a letter of resignation. There can be little doubt with respect to the position of law settled on the said subject. In respect of an employee who submitted an application for resignation, it would be open to him to withdraw the same prior to the expiry of the period of notice. There is no dispute in this case regarding the period of notice and it is admittedly six months. On perusal of Ext.P2 letter of resignation, we noticed that it was issued in tune with the notice period specifically provided under Ext.P3. This fact is very much evident from Ext.P4 itself. It is to be noted that eventhough the appellants claimed that the Ext.P2 letter of resignation was accepted the tenor of Ext.P5 would reveal that it was ordered to accept only on the expiry of the notice period. In that context, it is relevant to refer to Ext.P5 letter. In Ext.P5 it is stated thus; “ _your resignation dated 03.07.2017 from the services of Air India Express has been accepted by competent authority. Your expected release will be after completion of six months notice period from your date of resignation_ . This is for your kind information. _You_ ” _are requested to complete all Admin formalities before release_ . Thus, it is evident from the materials on record that eventhough the W.A. No796 of 2018 9 appellants claimed that the letter of resignation was accepted, a perusal of the records relating acceptance of the letter of resignation by the writ petitioner/the respondent herein, would reveal that actually it was to take its effect only on the expiry of six months. There is no scope for disputing the fact that the letter seeking withdrawal of resignation was submitted by the writ petitioner/ the respondent herein, before the expiry of the period of notice and before her release from the service. 5. In such circumstances, in the light of the decisions in _**Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal** [1989 Supp (2) SCC 175],_ the appellants could not be heard to contend that before the expiry of the notice period the writ petitioner was not entitled to seek for withdrawal of the letter of resignation. In short, taking into account the factual matrix, the learned Single Judge accepted the contention raised by the writ petitioner/ the respondent and allowed the writ petition and the conclusions and findings therein are strictly in conformity with the decision in P.K. Mittal's case. In the light of the aforesaid indisputable facts and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. Mittal's case, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a W.A. No796 of 2018 10 letter of resignation could take effect only on expiry of the notice period we are of the considered view that the contention of the appellant that the learned Single Judge had erred in considering the various contentions, cannot be upheld. According to us, the impugned judgment is the outcome of rightful conclusions based on the settled position of law, on the subject. In the result, the appeal is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE Sd/MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// SKK/ad P.A. TO JUDGE