IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. PARTHIBAN, J.
Air Corporation Employees Union (Regn No. 3905), Rep by its President C. Udayashankar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep by the Secretary, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 25568 of 2021
Decided On : 11-03-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the trade union and air india disinvestment. (Para 1) |
| 2. details on employees' rights and issues raised by union. (Para 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 3. government's policy decision on disinvestment. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 4. importance of consultation and representation of employees. (Para 12 , 16) |
| 5. judicial non-interference in economic policy decisions. (Para 38 , 46) |
| 6. operationalizing section 9a of i.d. act in disinvestment. (Para 54) |
| 7. conclusion on employee rights post-disinvestment. (Para 76 , 77) |
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 from proceeding further with the process of disinvestment of the stake of the Government of India in Air India Ltd without taking appropriate measures to protect the terms and conditions of service and the rights of the employees of Air India Ltd represented by the petitioner union and covered by the recommendations contained in the report dated 10.2.2020 of the bilateral committee constituted under notification bearing Ref No.HPD02/130 issued by the Director (Personnel) Air India post disinvestment in consultation with the petitioner union and without addressing the issues raised by the petitioner union in their representation dated 9.8.2021 to the Director (Personnel), Air India Limited and settling all the pending dues of the members of the petitioner union.)
1. The facts and circumstances that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition are stated hereunder:
“(a) The petitioner is a registered trade union, claim to represent over 5000 employees of Air India Ltd. and the erstwhile Indian Airlines. The petitioner union has its registered office at Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi and four regional offices, with its southern regional office being located in Chennai. The petitioner union claims to be an independent union with no political affiliation. The union has been espousing the cause of its workers in the transport industry for over five decades and its members include cabin crew, aircraft equipment operators, drivers, instructors, supervisors, assistants, peons, helpers, safaiwalas and security staff. The women employees account for about 40% of the membership of the petitioner union. It also claims to be the largest recognized trade union in Air India Ltd.
(b) The second respondent herein is a company wholly owned by the Government of India. It is a State airline, providing domestic as well as international air transport services, and has been recognized as national carrier of India. The company Air India has its subsidiaries viz., Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL), Air India Airport Service Ltd. (AIASL), engaged in ground handling activities in airports, baggage checking, passenger handling etc., Air India Express Ltd. (AIXL) which operates as low cost carrier to Gulf and South East Asia, Airline Allied Service Ltd. (AASL), operates domestic transportations in India and Jaffna and Hotel Corporation of India Ltd runs the Centaur Hotels.
(c) Although in the preamble portion of the affidavit it has been elaborately stated about the enacting of Air Corporations Act, 1953 and the subsequent Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1994 and the formation of Air India and Indian Airlines and the amalgamation of Indian Airlines with Air India Ltd. in November 2010 etc., but those details may not be necessary for adjudication of the present dispute before this Court.
(d) The grievance of the petitioner union herein is that in January, 2020, the first respondent, the Government of India, decided to disinvest its 100% stake in Air India Ltd., the second respondent. After a decision was taken to disinvest of its 100% stake in the company, bids were invited from potential buyers during the year 2020. In the process of disinvestment, in September, 2021, the Government issued an order notifying the transfer of capital assets of Air India Ltd
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private company, even if it discharges a public function, unless the contract of service is governed or regulated b....
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a privatized government entity, and subsequent events may render the relief sought incapable of being grante....
The High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in ord....
Compassionate appointments are contingent upon the issuance of a medical invalidation certificate, and undertakings provided under employment benefit schemes are binding and cannot be disregarded.
A policy decision by Central Government, taken after due deliberations, at various levels and is not open to interference in judicial review by this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 o....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.