JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Table of contents

Preface

Background

Submissions on behalf of AIL

Submissions on behalf of the pilots

Analysis and reasons

(I) Whether resignation operates in praesenti?

(II)Whether the resignation tendered requires acceptance?

(III)Inconsistent conduct of AIL

(IV)Relevancy of reasons in ascertaining the legal tenability of resignations

(IV) Import and scope of CAR.

(V) Cases where resignations were accepted prior to expiry of notice period

(VI) FTCs

(VII) The Sandhu case

(VII) Ratiocination of the Sandhu case

Conclusion:-

Preface:-

1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 01.06.2021 [hereafter referred to as "impugned judgment", passed by the learned single judge in various writ petitions.

2. The appellant before us is Air India Limited [hereafter referred to as AIL]. The respondents, in each of these appeals, are pilots who were employed by AIL. For the sake of convenience, they will be collectively referred to as "pilots", unless the context requires them to be described otherwise.

Background:-

3. Although the record filed before us is huge and expansive, the central issue which arises for consideration veers around the following.

3.1 The pilots had, at one point or other, tendered their resignation, which they subsequently sought to withdraw.

3.2 The withdrawal of resignations by pilots led to the emergence of myriad scenarios. In some cases, the request for withdrawal of resignation was rejected, while in others, the request made for the withdrawal of resignation was accepted. In certain cases, after AIL had accepted the request for withdrawal of resignation, it took a U-turn by accepting the resignation tendered by the pilot, before the request for withdrawal of resignation was made.

4. Thus, except for the aforesaid variation in circumstances swirling around resignation tendered by pilots, arrayed before us as parties, the facts are not in dispute, although the legal implications arising therefrom are contested. It is also important to highlight the fact that the pilots before us fall into two streams i.e., one set of pilots are those who were inducted into service as regular employees [as per prevailing rules and regulations] and are thus permanent employees, while there are others, who gained entry into AIL with the execution of "Fixed Term Contracts" [in short FTCs].

5. Thus, before we proceed further, it would be helpful if we were to segregate the pilots according to the scenarios, in which their cases fall.

(i) Pilots whose resignation was accepted, in the first instance, before the expiry of six months notice period [albeit, without issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC)]; followed by service of the impugned letter upon them. In these cases, resignations were accepted the second time around, albeit, after the six months notice period expired. [Table I]

(ii) Pilots who withdrew their resignation before the end of six months notice period and the request made by them for withdrawal of resignation was accepted by AIL, followed by service of impugned letters. [Table II ]

(iii) Pilots who withdrew their resignation before the end of six months notice period and their request for withdrawal was rejected. [Table III]

(iv) Pilots who withdrew their resignation, after the expiry of the six months notice period, but before the acceptance of resignation by AIL [Table IV]

5.1. Pertinently, via the impugned judgment, the learned single judge quashed the letters dated 13.08.2020, 15.08.2020 and 16.10.2020, whereby resignations of pilots were accepted, by AIL. For the sake of convenience, these letters will be collectively referred to as "impugned letters", unless the context requires otherwise.

Table I

PERMANENT EMPLOYEES