2024:BHC-OS:1515 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2007 OF 2019 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4587 OF 2021 Air India Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s.

Hemangi Prabhu and Ors. … Respondents __________

Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lancy D’souza and Ms. Deepika Agarwal i/by. Mr. V.M. Parkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Haresh Shivdasani for Respondent Nos.1 to 6, 8, 9, 12 to 17, 19 to 22, 24, 25, 27 to 29, 31 to 33, 36 to 42 and 45.

Mr. Rakesh Singh with Ms. Heena Shaikh i/by. M.V. Kini & Co., for Respondent No. 46.

__________

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Reserved On : 9 JANUARY 2024.

Pronounced On : 24 JANUARY 2024.

JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. This petition is filed by Air India Ltd (AIL) challenging the Award dated 6 March 2018 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai in Reference No. CGIT-2/11 of 2007. By that Award, the Tribunal has declared that the workmen listed at Annexure-A to the Statement of Claim are entitled to the status of permanency from the dates of their initial appointments with further direction to the Petitioner to grant them the status of permanency from the dates of their initial appointments with full backwages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits as are paid to permanent workmen of AIL.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner is an air transport company and was India’s national carrier. It is a resultant company out of amalgamation between Air India Ltd. and the erstwhile Indian Airlines Ltd. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 45 are the wards of employees employed by AIL. AIL has various subsidiary companies such as Air India Air Transport Services Ltd. (AIATSL), Air India Charters Ltd. (AICL), Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL), etc. It is Petitioner’s case that AIATSL provides ground handling services not just to AIL but also to several other airlines who are its clients. That AIATSL does not cater exclusively to AIL.

4. Petitioner claims that due to serious financial crises, which was threatening its very existence, the Government of India provided a bail-out package to the Petitioner under which the engineering department and ground handling services were demerged from the Petitioner and transferred to AIESL and AIATSL respectively.

5. On 26 March 1992, a ‘Record Note’ was executed between AIL and the Air India Employees’ Guild, which at the relevant time was the major Union recognized by the Petitioner. As per the said Record Note, AIL agreed to provide compassionate appointments to the children of deceased/medically incapacitated employees on various terms and conditions provided for in the said Record Note.

6. It is Petitioner’s case that the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India imposed a ban on recruitment in AIL in any category vide Memorandum dated 23 June 1997 except the categories like Pilot, Air Engineers, Cabin Crew etc. Petitioner claims that in view of the said ban, no recruitment could be done nor any compassionate appointments could be granted to the wards of deceased/medically incapacitated employees after 23 June 1997.

7. It appears that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 45 made applications to AIL for grant of compassionate appointments on account of death/medical incapacity of their parents. It appears that their applications were scrutinized by AIL and they were called upon to submit the requisite documents for processing the cases on compassionate grounds. It appears that on account of ban on recruitment in AIL, the subsidiary company AICL offered them temporary appointments for fixed tenures. Petitioner claims that such appointments were accepted by Respondent Nos.1 to 45 without any demur. It appears that on account of non-availability of work with AICL, Respondent Nos. 1 to 45 were subsequently offered temporary appointments with AIATSL which subseque