Point of law: There is a uniform policy, reducing the allowances proportionally. In other words, higher the allowance, higher the amount of reduction. The allowances of the general category employees were initially reduced to 50% but later revised and relaxed at 30%. Similarly, in the case of cabin crew, it has been reduced to 20% of the allowances.

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

As both the writ petitions involve identical issues, the same are being decided through this common order: -

W.P.(C) 11020/2020

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are two associations, All India Aircraft Engineers” Association and Air India Aircraft Engineers” Association with the following prayers: -

“In view of the above mentioned facts, circumstances and grounds, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased: -

a. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari against the office order ref no.: AIESL/COP/2020/1452 dated 23rd July 2020;

b. issue a appropriate writ, order or command directing the Respondent to disburse salary of the Petitioner Associations on time.

c. to pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice in favour of the Petitioners;”

2. In substance, the challenge in this petition is to an office order dated July 23, 2020 whereby the respondent AI Engineering Services Ltd. (“AIESL” for short) has rationalised the allowances of employees of AIESL which includes Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (the petitioners herein), Support Service Engineers, Service Engineers, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (737 Vertical), Technician (737 Vertical), Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (ATR Vertical), Technician (ATR Vertical), General category Officers, Clerical and allied category staff and unskilled category, Fixed Term Employees of AIESL.

3. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order by which allowances have been reduced, has been passed unilaterally without consultation and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. According to him, Air India and Indian Airlines were merged into a single entity in the year 2007 and a company being NACIL was established which was renamed in, 2010 as Air India Ltd. under the administrative control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation (respondent No.1). The entire Engineering and Engine Overhaul Department of respondent No. 2, Air India, was hived off to be made as respondent No. 3 i.e. All India Engineering Services Ltd. (AISEL). The said respondent assured members of the petitioner association that they would be getting pay, allowances and other benefits as would have been applicable to them had they continued in the parent company.

4. Mr. Hegde laid stress on the fact that the respondent No.3 company AIESL is running in profits, as per the admission in the impugned order itself. Furthermore, no financial emergency had been declared at the time of issuance of the impugned order and the respondent No. 3 was running into profit as well as members of the association were also working throughout the pandemic inasmuch as they worked on the mission Vande Bharat mission, which was successful and was lauded everywhere.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is the unequal cuts in the gross pay due to economic measures imposed by the respondent No. 3 has no rationale with respect to imposing different deductions for the employees working under it.

6. Mr. Hegde would submit that an affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court wherein in paragraph 17, it was specifically stated that the members of the petitioner association would be getting pay, allowances and other benefits as applicable to them had they continued in the parent company. The respondent No. 1 has violated the terms of the affidavit submitted by them before the Supreme Court by imposing a discriminatory wage cut by selecting different parameters/allowances for the deduction for the employees of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. That apart, the impugned office order has been passed in a discriminatory manner inasmuch as the impugned office order has cleverly included the special allowances i.e. special pay, qualification pay (license/approval a