The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Pilots were considered workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the issue and determine the quantum in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) ID Act.

1. These writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as identical facts and legal issues are involved in these petitions. In W.P.(C) Nos. 664/2010, 3389/2010 and 2666/2010 the management has challenged the orders each dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) allowing the claim of the workman towards unpaid salary, incentives for extra flying hours and welfare expenses, which were not given by the management. The workmen in writ petitions Nos. 7442/2010, 7444/2010 and 7445/2010 have challenged the same impugned orders to the extent that in the claim petitions, interest was also prayed for, however no interest has been granted by the learned Tribunal and thus the same be awarded by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the management contends that a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act) is executary in nature and is not maintainable without an independent adjudication under Section 10 of the ID Act. No Tribunal can determine the amount under these proceedings. The benefit sought under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act flows from a pre-existing right. Thus, the application before the Industrial Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Brijpal Singh (2005) 8 SCC 58; State Bank of India Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Birendra Bhandari (2006) 10 SCC 211 and Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 281. It is further contended that the adjudication as to whether the Pilot was a workman or not could not have been conducted by the Tribunal in a petition under Section 33-C (2) ID Act and the said adjudication having not taken place as either no petition was filed under Section10 ID Act or the same was dismissed in default, the workman were not entitled to any relief. Reliance is placed on D. Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill & Anr. (2008) 7 SCC 22; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak (1995) 1 SCC 235. It is next contended that the Pilots/workmen Manjit Singh, Pritam Singh and N.D. Kathuria were not workmen as they were performing supervisory functions. Reliance is also placed on Captain R.Khosla (Capt.) Vs. Jetlite India Ltd. (ID No. 24/2000 decided on 7September, 2012 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-L/C-II, Govt. of India) wherein the Tribunal held that a Pilot is not a workman and hence the Tribunal cannot take contradictory stands. It is further contended that the Pilots/workmen Manjit Singh, Pritam Singh and N.D. Kathuria refused to fly the aircraft and due to this act of indiscipline their services were terminated. Relying on the definition of the retrenchment and Section 2(oo) of the ID Act, it is stated that when the termination is by way of a punishment inflicted in disciplinary action, the same does not amount to retrenchment and would not attract the provisions of Chapter V of the ID Act. Thus, the criteria stipulated under Section 33-C of the ID Act were not satisfied. Since the issues raised by the management show that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, the impugned orders are a nullity. It is further stated that a petition under Section 10 ID Act filed by Manjit Singh and the one filed by N.D. Kathuria against the termination were dismissed for non-prosecution. The petition of Pritam Singh under Section 10 of the ID Act has also been dismissed, which he has challenged by way of W.P.(C) 1490/2012. Distinguishing the judgment of this Court in Mathur Aviation Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Ors. 1977 (2) LLJ 255 it is stated that in the said case the Pilot was performing the duties of aerial spray and thus had no supervisory or managerial functions and the said decision is not an authority that a Pilot is a workman. Further in the present case the three Pilots/wo