IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
All India Service Engineers Association & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India, Through the Ministry of Labour & Employment & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (L) Nos. 34307, 34165, 34902 of 2022
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Companies Act, 1956 - Air India Housing Allotment Rules, 2017 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Allotted accommodations – Eviction - Petitions are filed by All India Service Engineers Association, Aviation Industry Employees Guild and Air Corporation Employees Union (collectively referred to as Petitioner Unions) who represent employees working in Air India Limited (AIL), Air India Engineering Services Limited and Air India Airport Services Ltd (Respondent Companies) - Though prayers made in three petitions do not exactly match, broad grievance of Petitioner unions are with regard to (i) Order dated declining to make reference to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) (ii) changing of penal rent and damage rent (iii) deduction/withholding of Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) for non-vacation of accommodations - AIL was incorporated as a Government Company under Companies Act, 1956 - Whether employees in occupation of accommodations deserve to be evicted and/or penal/damage rent can be levied are mere consequential issues dependent on decision of main issue – Held, It is contended on behalf of Petitioner-Unions that undertakings given by employees are on account of threats of recovery of penal and damage rents and such undertakings should be ignored by this court - None of Petitioner-Unions have given any details of exact employees on whose behalf petitions are filed - In absence of any details and any challenge in pleadings to figures put forth by Respondents, we are left with no option but to accept those figures - Monitisation of lands and properties of AIL is one of essential terms of disinvestment process - Ofcourse right, if any, of employees to occupy accommodations will be dependent on terms and conditions of leave and licence agreements and Court have left this issue open to be decided in appropriate proceedings- Court do not find any error in Order dated declining to make an order of reference - Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing.
THE CHALLENGE
2. Air India Ltd., India’s national carrier has been privatized through strategic disinvestment process by the Government of India. Its employees are facing eviction from their allotted accommodations and through their unions, had raised a demand for making a reference for industrial adjudication. That demand has met with rejection by the Central Government vide order dated 12th October 2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petitions.
3. Petitions are filed by All India Service Engineers Association, Aviation Industry Employees Guild and Air Corporation Employees Union (collectively referred to as Petitioner Unions) who represent employees working in Air India Limited (AIL), Air India Engineering Services Limited and Air India Airport Services Ltd (Respondent Companies). Though prayers made in the three petitions do not exactly match, the broad grievance of Petitioner unions are with regard to (i) Order dated 12th October 2022 declining to make reference to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) (ii) changing of penal rent and damage rent (iii) deduction/withholding of Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) for non-vacation of accommodations.
FACTS
4. AIL was incorporated as a Government Company under the Companies Act, 1956. Air India Engineering Services Ltd. and Air India Airport Services Ltd. came to be incorporated as wholly owned subsidiaries of AIL for handling its engineering and ground handling departments. Several (but not all) employees of AIL and two subsidiary companies were allotted residential accommodations in accordance with provisions of Air India Housing Allotment Rules, 2017 (Housing Allotment Rules).
5. The Government of India approved plan for privatization of AIL. After grant of in-principle approval for strategical disinvestment of AIL, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs constituted a body named Air India Specific Alternate Mechanism (AISAM). With a view to monetise the assets of AIL, all the lands and properties of AIL were vested in newly formed company Air India Assets Holding Company Limited (AIAHCL). Thus, the lands and buildings in which the residential accommodations are situated became the property in ownership of AIAHCL. A decision was taken by AISAM to permit all employees of Respondent-companies to occupy residential accommodations for a period of six months post disinvestment or till property was monetized, whichever was earlier. Accordingly, letter dated 29th September 2021 was issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to the AIL conveying decision taken by AISAM for vacation of accommodations allotted to the servings and retired employees. In pursuance of the letter dated 29th September 2021, the Respondent Companies issued letters to their respective employees on 7/8th October 2021 intimating them the contents of the letter dated 29th September 2021.
6. The Joint Action Committee of Air India Unions filed strike notice with the Labour Commissioner on 13th October 2021 alleging that proposed action of eviction would amount to withdrawing privilege, which is a service condition incapable of being changed without following procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (ID Act). On 27th January 2022, AIL was privatized by transfer of 100% shares to Talace Private Ltd. On 26th May 2022, the employees were once again directed to vacate the accommodations by 26th July 2022. Majority of the employees either vacated the allotted accommodations or submitted undertakings to vacate the same. The conciliation proceedings commenced on account of issuance of strike notice.
7. Petitioners filed Writ Petition (L) Nos.19001 of 2022, 19171 of 2022 and 20338 of 2022 challenging the lett
M/s. Avon Service Production Agencies (P) Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana & Ors.
Ram Avtar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
Telco Convoy Driverss Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. v State of Bihar & Ors.
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr.
Saroj N. Patil vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
V. Veerarajan & Ors. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Gurmail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Piara Singh & Ors.
Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr. vs. State of Assam & Ors.
E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooram Chandra Pandey & Ors.
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. & Anr.
S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India & Anr.
Prem Kakar vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
Prabhakar vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr.
Rahman Industries Private Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Balco Employees’ Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors.
C.M. Beena & Anr. vs. P.N. Ramchandra Rao
Bombay Union of Journalists & Ors. vs. The State of Bombay & Anr.
gpt-4
Employees' entitlement to retain accommodation and the legality of charging penal rent without due process under the 2017 Rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the appropriate Government to decline a reference under the ID Act must be supported by reasons, a conclusive decision, and pr....
Employees of a privatized company do not have a legal or vested right to retain company-provided accommodation post-privatization.
The court upheld that eviction from a government company's property under the Public Premises Act is valid even when termination disputes are pending.
Point of Law : Claim of damage/penal rent against the petitioner for the period mentioned in the impugned order. But the claim of the damage/penal rent cannot be on the basis of IRCON Rules.
Eviction can be lawfully executed under public premises legislation when occupancy after a specified period lapses, regardless of retention requests from a former government employee, allowing for re....
A former employee's unauthorized retention of government quarters beyond the permissible period constitutes unlawful occupation, justifying eviction and recovery of related charges from pension benef....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.