A non-statutory and determinable employment contract cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction, and termination under such contracts, when following prescribed terms, is valid.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition lays a challenge to Termination letter dated 20.05.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to release balance salary of the Petitioner at the rate of Rs. 95,000/- per month with effect from 01.06.2020 after adjusting the amount already paid, amongst other reliefs.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner submits that he does not press relief (iii) pertaining to issuance of certificates of B1 Type rated course on A320 family aircraft, as the same have already been issued to him.

3. Factual score, shorn of unnecessary details, emerging from the narrative in the writ petition is that the Petitioner being an ex-serviceman from Indian Air Force and ex-DGCA Officer, applied for the post of Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) pursuant to an advertisement dated 07.08.2019. Recruitment was on a fixed term employment for a period of 5 years, subject to further extension, based on requirements of the Company.

4. Upon being selected to the post of AME, Petitioner was appointed vide letter dated 10.01.2020 and a contract agreement, on fixed term basis, was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. As per clause 13 of the said contract, salary of the Petitioner was to be fixed in the range of Rs.95,000/- to Rs.1,28,000/- commensurate with the qualifications and experience. Petitioner was asked to report to the Regional HR Heads of Air India Engineering Services Limited (AIESL) by 15.01.2020 for joining duties.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that from the time of his joining, he performed his duties dedicatedly and without any blemish. He used to certify in-store inspection in AIESL MRO, NEC, Mumbai and worked in place of three people, who had since retired. The job profile involved inspection of incoming OEM and rotables items/parts of aircrafts, which was a very sensitive job where a small mistake could result in a huge loss and damage. Petitioner was also assigned duties of aircraft certification in Line Maintenance etc., which he performed satisfactorily and had on several occasions flagged issues concerning safety and related hazards, keeping in view the DGCA Aircraft Rules, as well as deficiencies like non-availability of aircraft servicing trestle, insufficient support staff etc., which were, however, ignored by the Management.

6. One of the grievances of the Petitioner is that despite working dedicatedly and as a substitute for nearly 3 people, he was paid a meagre salary of Rs.37,000/- per month, in contrast to employees with the same designation of AME and contrary to the terms of appointment, stipulated in the advertisement and his contract of service. On numerous occasions, Petitioner had sought redressal of his grievance, both orally and in writing, but no action was taken and even though subsequently there was some enhancement in the salary, it was only increased to Rs.70,000/- and that too with effect from January, 2022. However, soon thereafter, Respondent No. 2 terminated the services of the Petitioner by the impugned letter, without assigning any reason and without any show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. Shocked by the termination letter, vide email dated 23.05.2022, Petitioner enquired the reasons for his sudden termination, but there was no response, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Court.

7. Petitioner assails his termination primarily on two grounds: (a) termination order is non-speak