Shri Ajayan K Vs the Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

SHRI AJAYAN K S/O LATE RAGHAVAN P K, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DEPT/PB NO. R 355/605061 AIRCRAFT TECHNICIAN S-6 RESIDING AT C/O JOHN VALSON, CHAKKALAKKAL, MATTAMMAL JN, KONTHURUTHY ROAD, THEVARA PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALAM - 682013

¶12

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHRI. KRISHNA DAS KN S/O NARAYANA DAS KK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS DEPT/PB NO. R 355/605681 AIRCRAFT TECHNICIAN S-8 RESIDING AT KALAVAMAPARA HOUSE, DESPENSERY WEST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CHERAI PO, KERALAM

¶14

SHRI. JOSEPH CV S/O LATE VARGHESE CL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS DEPT/PB NO. R 355/605241 AIRCRAFT TECHNICIAN D-8

¶15

2 -

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:39225-DB WA No. 1811 of 2026

¶18

CNR: KAHC010506062026

¶19

HAVING THEIR RESIDING ADDRESS AT, CHEMMANNOR HOUSE, PUTHENPALLI POST, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALAM-680103

¶20

…APPELLANTS

¶21

(BY SRI. DR.RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. L MURALIDHAR PESHWA., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY'S ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, 15/01, CUBBON ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR)

¶24

THE MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY'S ACT, 1956 HELICOPTER MRO DIVISION, HELICOPTER COMPLEX, POST BOX NO. 1796, VIMANAPURA POST, BENGALURU- 560017 (REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE DIVISION)

¶25

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENSE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENSE NO.104, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.RAMDAS., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP.S.SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶27

3 -

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:39225-DB WA No. 1811 of 2026

¶30

CNR: KAHC010506062026

¶31

C/R1 AND R2;

¶32

R3 ASG SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶33

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2026, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 12808 OF 2026, AS THE ORDER IS MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND AGAINST THE WELL LAID DOWN PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY APPELLANTS MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE CONTINUED WITH THEIR SERVICES AT THE RESPONDENT COMPANY.

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶39

This appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent

¶40

of both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶41

The present appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge vacating the interim order that had been operating in favour of the appellants for a period of six months. Learned Single Judge vacated the interim order on the ground that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:39225-DB WA No. 1811 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CNR: KAHC010506062026

¶45

the availability of an alternate remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶46

We are not expressing any opinion on the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, we are of the considered view that when the writ petitions are still pending adjudication, it would not be appropriate to vacate the interim order at this stage.

¶47

Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal requesting the learned Single Judge to decide the matter finally preferable as expeditiously as possible may be within a period of two months.

¶48

The parties are directed to extend full cooperation to facilitate early disposal of the writ petitions and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the learned Single Judge.

¶49