Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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.

 

Similar News