MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
K.K.Trivedi, J.
S.D. Tiwari and Another - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1759-2013
Decided On : 18-09-2013
Seniority Dispute - Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Section 18 - Section 40 - Section 42
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Central Government fixing the seniority of merged employees and officers of International Airports Authority of India and National Airports Authority from the date of implementation of common Recruitment and Promotion Regulations in Airports Authority of India. The dispute arose due to difficulty in determining seniority and service benefits of the merged employees, leading to the formation of three committees and subsequent orders by the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the date of merger should be the date of coming into force of the Act itself, and the retrospective seniority would not adversely affect the rights of the petitioners. The Court held that there was no arbitrariness in the policy and order issued by the Central Government.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the date of merger for fixing the seniority of merged employees and officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the date of merger should be the date of coming into force of the Act itself, and the retrospective seniority would not adversely affect the rights of the petitioners.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the two petitioners is directed against the order dated 10/17.10.2012 passed by the respondent No. 1-Union of India, in Ministry of Civil Aviation, whereby a direction is given to fix the seniority of the merged employees and officers of International Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as IAAI for brevity) and National Airports Authority (hereinafter referred to as NAA for brevity) from the date on which the common Recruitment and Promotion Regulations in Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as AAI for short), were implemented. It is contended that there was a difficulty in fixing the seniority of the merged officers and employees of AAI and, therefore, the matter was referred to the Central Government. Three committees were constituted in succession, which gave their reports. The third Committee at the last gave a definite finding as to why the seniority of such merged employees should be determined with effect from the year 2009. The Central Government though accepted the entire recommendations made by the third Committee, yet the report of the second Committee was accepted only for the purposes of prescribing a cut off date for determination of the seniority. Since this was done without any justified reason, the impugned order to this extent was liable to be quashed. It will be necessary to give brief history of this dispute which was pending before the respondents for a long time, which is summarised hereinafter.
2. The Parliament has enacted an Act known as Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 1994 Act for brevity) for the purposes of establishing an authority to look after all activities related to construction and management of International and domestic airports, establishing air traffic control and air space management. Prior to the establishment of the AAI by virtue of 1994 Act, such activities were being controlled by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). The object of making of such an Act was the need to meet out the growing operational activities as well as heavy investment for modernisation of airports, which was difficult to be controlled by DGCA. With this object, the 1994 Act was made. Section 3 of the Act deals with constitution and incorporation of the authority for the purposes of the Act, which reads thus:-
“3. Constitution and incorporation of the Authority.-(1) With effect from the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute an authority to be called the Airports Authority of India.
(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and immovable, and to contract and shall be the said name sue and be sued.
(3) The Authority shall consist of-
(a) a Chairperson to be appointed by the Central Government;
(b) the Director General of Civil Aviation, or an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation, to be appointed by the Central Government, ex officio;
(c) not less than eight and not more than fourteen members to be appointed by the Central Government.
(4) The Chairperson shall be a whole-time member and other members referred to in clause (c) of subsection 3) may be appointed as whole-time or part-time members as the Central Government may think fit.
(5) The Chairperson and the members referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (3) shall be chosen from among persons who have special knowledge and experience in air transport or any other transport services, industry, commercial or financial matters or administration and from among persons who are capable of representing organisations of workers and consumers.
3. The purpose of such a constitution of the AAI and its manner of function indicates that the Chairperson of the authority wa
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.