Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs

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