A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel for the Respondents in the respective petitions waive notice. Taken up for final disposal, by consent.

2. As common questions are involved, these petitions are disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. All these petitions were proceeded together as common questions have been raised in these matters.

4. Writ Petition No.2457 of 2012 is filed by the Union representing Licensed / Approved Aircraft Maintenance Engineers employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad.

5. Writ Petition No.391 of 2013 is filed by the Union representing Licensed / Approved Aircraft Maintainance technical staff employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad.

6. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2896 of 2012 is filed by the Union claiming to be the largest representative organisation of the Aircraft Engineers employed by Respondent No.1.

7. Lastly, Writ Petition (Lodging) No.585 of 2013 has been filed by the employees of Union claiming to represent all the Aircraft Technicians and Foremen category of the erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited employed by Respondent No.1 throughout India and abroad.

8. Notably, the reliefs claimed in all these petitions are similar. It is prayed that Respondent No.1 be restrained from hiving-off / demerging the Engineering Department of Respondent No.2. In the alternative, Respondent No.1 may be directed to continue the concerned employees, whose cause is espoused by the petitioners – unions employed in the Engineering Department of the erstwhile Air India Limited as the employees of and on the payroll of Respondent No.1, maintaining all their existing terms and conditions of service and only send them on deputation basis to Respondent No.2. It is further prayed that direction be issued to set up an expert Committee to study the feasibility including economic viability of the hiving / demerging of the Engineering Department of Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2.

9. Briefly stated, Respondent No.1 has set up a wholly owned subsidiary in the name of Air India Engineering Services Limited (AIESL), the Respondent No.2, and planned hiving-off / demerging the entire Engineering Department of Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2. After becoming aware about this development, the employees' unions made representations to the Management to desist from proceeding with the said proposal of hiving-off/demerging the entire Engineering Department of Respondent No.1 and until detailed feasibility study by an independent concern was undertaken in that behalf. Having noticed that inspite of doubts expressed in some quarters about the viability of demerging of the entire Engineering Department of Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 and, more particularly, as the employees employed by Respondent No.1 in the said Department apprehended retrenchment either by Respondent No.1 or after the demerger by Respondent No.2 on some pretext and, further, because there was strong possibility of Respondent No.2 not able to sustain the business competition and eventually likely to be closed down, decided to move the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Respondent No.3, to intervene in the industrial dispute and admit the demand into conciliation under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). The apprehension of the employees of Respondent No.1 employed in the said Department became stronger as their salaries were also not paid for the month of July, August, September, 2012 nor the last six months PLI (Productivity Linked Incentive), amongst other allowances, and benefits were offered to them. It is stated that the conciliation proceeding in that regard are in progress. It is not necessary to burden with the details of the issues involved in those proceedings for considering the nature of reliefs claimed in the present petitions.

10. Suffice it to observe that the petitioners have rushed to this Court by way of present peti