SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Arjun Ahluwalia - Appellant
Versus
Air India Limited - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4203 of 2020, 5330 of 2020, 4928 of 2020, 4851 of 2020, 4850 of 2020 , 4420 of 2020, 5417 of 2020, 5416 of 2020, 5413 of 2020, 5411 of 2020, 5371 of 2020 , 5649 of 2020, 5645 of 2020, 5634 of 2020, 5631 of 2020, 5614 of 2020, 5599 of 2020, 5472 of 2020 , 5651 of 2020, 5648 of 2020, 5647 of 2020, 5646 of 2020, 5633 of 2020, 5632 of 2020, 5660 of 2020 , 9442 of 2020, 8626 of 2020, 8625 of 2020, 6597 of 2020, 6473 of 2020, 6322 of 2020; C.M. No. 19550 of 2020, 15095 of 2020 , 1488 of 2021, 19550 of 2020 of 2020, 19558 of 2020, 15920 of 2020, 8290 of 2021, 1489 of 2021, 19552 of 2020, 17494 of 2020 , 3143 of 2021, 17496 of 2020, 19702 of 2020 , 3219 of 2021, 19550 of 2020 of 2020 of 2020, 19558 of 2020 of 2020, 19481 of 2020, 17800 of 2020 , 3150 of 2021, 19248 of 2020, 1486 of 2021, 19345 of 2020, 29306 of 2020 , 3142 of 2021, 19528 of 2020 , 1482 of 2021, 19532 of 2020 , 3220 of 2021, 19540 of 2020 , 3138 of 2021, 19543 of 2020 , 4242 of 2021, 19728 of 2020 , 3139 of 2021, 20240 of 2020 , 4228 of 2021, 20346 of 2020, 3182 of 2021, 20391 of 2020 , 3188 of 2021, 20398 of 2020 , 3180 of 2021, 20451 of 2020 , 3187 of 2021, 20460 of 2020 , 4243 of 2021, 20490 of 2020 , 3184 of 2021, 20393 of 2020 , 3140 of 2021, 20396 of 2020 , 3185 of 2021, 20453 of 2020 , 3186 of 2021, 20455 of 2020 , 3217 of 2021, 20458 of 2020, 3191 of 2021, 20465 of 2020 , 3189 of 2021, 22438 of 2020, 22439 of 2020 , 3181 of 2021, 22767 of 2020, 23016 of 2020 , 3072 of 2021, 22438 of 2020 of 2020, 27794 of 2020, 27795 of 2020 , 4236 of 2021, 22438 of 2020 of 2020 of 2020, 27794 of 2020 of 2020, 27796 of 2020, 27797 of 2020 , 3218 of 2021, 30395 of 2020 , 3179 of 2021
Decided On : 01-06-2021

Advocates appeared:
Shankar Raju, Advocate, Nilansh Gaur, Advocate, A.P. Singh, Advocate, Padma Priya, Advocate, Akanksha Das, Advocate, Sanjeev Sen, Advocate, Aarti Mahto, Advocate, Abhishek Bharti, Advocate, Ravi Raghunath, Advocate, Aakashi Lodha, Advocate, Madhusruthi Neelakantan, Advocate, Yashaswini Venkatadri, Advocate, Keshav Sehgal, Advocate, Gaurav H Sethi, Advocate, Jitesh Wadhawan, Advocate, Abhinav Tyagi, Advocate, Satyabrata Panda, Advocate, Shashwata Panda, Advocate, Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, Basit K Zaidi, Advocate, Sonali Chopra, Advocate, Sanjoy Ghose, Advocate, Naman Jain, Advocate, Urvi Mohan, Advocate, Prateek Tushar Mohanty, Advocate, Anushree Menon, Advocate, Animesh Khandelwal, Advocate, Bhasker, Advocate, Pankaj Sharma, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Air India Employees' Service Regulations - Rule 18; Civil Aviation Requirement dated 27.10.2009 - Right of employees to withdraw resignation - Employees validly withdrew resignations during notice period before employer's acceptance; financial distress of employer not a legal ground to accept non est resignations. (Paras 27-39, 42-46).

(B) Employment Contracts - Fixed Term Contracts may be renewed - Employees entitled to consideration for renewal upon satisfactory performance - Resignation acceptance procedure must comply with legal principles and document individual circumstances. (Paras 76-80).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, comprising Permanent and Fixed Term Contract pilots, challenged the acceptance of their resignations by the employer after withdrawals were made before acceptance, citing procedural impropriety and financial strain motives by the employer. Court found the resignations were non est after withdrawal and thus could not be accepted. (Paras 1-13, 40).

Findings of Court:
The resignations were deemed non est at the time of acceptance; the financial crisis claimed by the employer was irrelevant under law; reinstatement and consideration for FTC renewal were directed. (All relevant findings around 39-95).

Issues: Court addressed whether employees could withdraw resignations prior to acceptance, the validity of financial distress as a ground for employer actions, and the enforceability of FTC terms in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 13, 38, 76).

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled employees have the right to withdraw resignations before acceptance, and the employer's claim of financial strain cannot override this principle. The employer must respect contractual obligations and fairness in employee relationships. (Paras 39-52, 76).

Result: The petitions were allowed; impugned orders quashed; reinstatement of employees ordered along with back wages and consideration for contract renewals. (Final order in Para 95).

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Petitioners herein were initially inducted by the Respondent as Trainee Pilots and subsequently released as First Officer. Those in permanent employment have been promoted to various ranks thereafter and out of those employed under the Fixed Term Contracts, some Petitioners were promoted to the rank of Captain, while the others were First Officers at the time of filing the present petitions.

2. Challenge is laid in the present petitions to the orders passed by the Respondent on 13.08.2020, except in W.P.(C) 5599/2020 where the impugned order is dated 15.08.2020 and W.P.(C) Nos. 8625/2020 and 8626/2020, where the impugned orders are both dated 16.10.2020, whereby Respondent has accepted the resignations tendered by the Petitioners, after the same were withdrawn by them, well before their acceptance. Mandamus is sought for a direction to the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioners, who were serving as permanent employees, with all consequential benefits of continuity of service, seniority, back wages etc. Petitioners, who were employed on Fixed Term Contracts, have sought directions to the Respondent to abide by their appointment letters and terms of the Contracts and permit them to continue in service till the present Contracts expire, with a further direction for renewal of the Contracts for a further term of 5 years, with consequential benefits. On account of the similitude of facts and common questions of law arising in all the writ petitions, the same are being taken up and decided by this common judgement.

3. Respondent/Air India Limited (erstwhile National Aviation Company of India Limited) is an amalgamation of Air India Limited and Indian Airlines Limited and is incorporated as a Public Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners in this batch of petitions are Pilots and can be broadly categorised under two heads : (a) Permanent Employees (hereinafter referred to as 'PEs') and (b) Fixed Term Contract Employees (hereinafter referred to as "FTCEs"). Consequent to amalgamation, the harmonized Air India Employees" Service Regulations were formulated, replacing all the previous Service Regulations and Standing Orders applicable to the erstwhile companies. Air India Regulations came into effect from 1.04.2013. PEs are governed by the Service Regulations and FTCEs are governed by the terms of their respective Fixed Term Contracts (hereinafter referred to as "FTCs"). However, both categories of Pilots are admittedly governed by the Civil Aviation Requirement (hereinafter referred to as "CAR") dated 27.10.2009, as amended from time to time.

4. The common thread that runs in all these petitions is a surmountable and vincible challenge to the action of the Respondent in accepting the resignations of the Petitioners, after the same were withdrawn prior to their acceptance. However, for the sake of convenience, with the consent of all the arguing counsels for the respective parties, the writ petitions were categorised into five categories, namely, Categories "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E". Category "A" encompasses only PEs, Categories "B" and "C" include both PEs and FTCEs, Categories "D" and "E" comprise of Pilots inducted under the FTCs. Before embarking further on the facts and the contentions of the parties, it would be useful to understand the categorisation, as that would reflect the varying issues arising in the present set of petitions and the same is as follows:

    (i) Category "A" : Petitioners tendered resignations with notice period of six months and withdrew the same within the notice period, but prior to acceptance of the resignations by the Respondent. Writ petitions were filed before the impugned orders accepting resignations were passed for a declaration that the resignations were non est and a direction to continue the Petitioners in service, with consequential benefits.

    (ii) Category "B" : Petitioners tendered resignations with notice period of six months and withdrew the same within

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top