Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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