Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC

No Vacancies for Permanent Appointments Post-1997: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Tribunal’s Award on Air India’s Employees Permanency

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has set aside the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai’s award, which had granted permanent status, backwages, and other benefits to the wards of employees of Air India Limited (AIL) employed through its subsidiaries. The High Court’s judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, emphasized that there were “no vacancies for permanent appointments post-1997,” aligning with the memorandum issued by the Government of India.

The writ petition (No. 2007 of 2019) was filed by Air India Ltd., contesting the Tribunal’s decision that declared wards of AIL employees (engaged through subsidiary companies like AIATSL, AICL, AIASL) as permanent employees entitled to backwages and other benefits. The core of the dispute revolved around whether these individuals were directly employed by AIL and the impact of the recruitment freeze mandated by the Government Memorandum dated June 23, 1997.

Justice Marne critically analyzed the Tribunal’s findings, which had primarily hinged on the aspect of supervision and control exercised by AIL over the respondents. The High Court observed, “The Tribunal misdirected itself by going into the aspect of supervision and control for the purpose of answering whether appointments of Respondent Nos. 1 to 45 were made by AIL on compassionate basis.” The judgment underscored that compassionate appointments must be against sanctioned vacant posts, which were effectively abolished following the 1997 memorandum, leaving AIL with no vacancies for such appointments.

The High Court found substantial errors in the Tribunal’s conclusions, particularly in its approach to granting permanency and backwages. The judgment stated, “The Tribunal erred in granting permanency in AIL services to respondents without considering limitation and feasibility due to the recruitment freeze.”

In a turn of events, the High Court remanded the case back to the Tribunal, directing it to decide on the alternate prayer for permanency in the services of either AICL or AIASL, keeping all questions open.

Date of Decision: 24th January 2024

AIR INDIA LTD. VS HEMANGI PRABHU AND ORS.

 

Latest Legal News