Petitioner challenged an order denying permanent absorption. High Court followed the 2018 judgment in W.P.No.17513 of 2010, upholding the status quo of non-permanent employment for ground handler employees due to industry changes.
None; the writ petition was disposed of following the order of an earlier batch of cases.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
Writ Petition No.10967 of 2018 and Writ Miscellaneous Petition No.12876 of 2018
M.Krishnamurthy .. Petitioner
/versus/
1.Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviations, Government of India, New Delhi. 2.The Executive Director, Air India Ltd., National Aviation Company of India Ltd., NAC II(1), Airline House, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027. 3.The General Manager-Personnel, Air India Ltd., National Aviation Company of India Ltd., Airline House, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027.
Page No: 1/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
4.The Deputy General Manager-Personal, Air India Ltd., Air Lines House, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
5.Manager-HR, Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Air India Unity Complex, Pallavaram Cantonment, Chennai-600 043.
.. Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent dated 17.04.2018 in Ref.MAA/IR/CL quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner with all other attendance benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunaseelan For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging order of the 4th respondent dated 17.04.2018 in Ref. MAA/IR/CL quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner with all other attendance benefits.
Page No: 2/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
India Limited in the year 1993 respectively and his nature of the work is that of permanent and perennial. However, the Air India engages workmen for short durations to deny them the benefit of permanency and other consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition.
“17. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that in view of drastic changes in Aviation industry over a period of time due to open sky policy adopted by the Government of India, the
Page No: 3/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
monopoly of the respondent Airlines had ended. In view of global competition in the Aviation industry, the Airlines had also suffered huge financial loss and eventually even unable to pay salaries due to the permanent employees regularly. Moreover, when the ground handling activity has been outsourced in all Airports in the country and these petitioners having been employed only in such activity, they cannot be ordered to be absorbed permanently in the respondent Airlines. As stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent Airlines was not recruiting any permanent Helpers for the last many years after the exist of permanent employees from employment. That being the case, the question of consideration of the original prayer by this Court as sought for in the writ petitions, does not arise.
18. In view of the inevitable changes which took place in the Aviation industry, this Court has to take practical and pragmatic view to find just and equitable solution to the employment crisis faced by the petitioners. As
Page No: 4/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that atleast the present state of employment of the petitioners with the 7th respondent has to be protected, since they cannot be made to work under constant fear of termination at any time, particularly, in the teeth of the fact that these petitioners had been employed as Helpers for more than two decades. That is why, probably the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had pleaded only for limited protection in order to atleast protect the present nature of employment of the petitioners, instead of seeking for absorption of their services with the respondent Airlines.
19. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that their nature of present employment as indicated in the contract of appointment entered into by the 7th respondent with the individual workman as reflected in specimen copy enclosed in additional typed set of papers, dated 19.5.2016, which pertains to one of the workmen, namely,
Page No: 5/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
Thiru.S.Venkatesan, on the same terms and conditions and such employment shall be continued in respect of other petitioners who were offered such appointment till they attain the age of superannuation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that the requirement of man power may change from time to time due to fluctuating market trends as the ground handling activity may increase or decrease depending upon the client-Airlines patronage. Therefore, considering the said submissions, this Court is of the view that as long as man power requirement is there by the second respondent, the services of the petitioners ought to be utilized and the petitioners at no point of time should be replaced by any other casual arrangement by resorting to employ other persons. It is made clear that on the basis of genuine man power requirement, it is always open to the 7th respondent to downsize or rightsize the employment as and when the situation demands and depending on such contingencies, these petitioners shall be
Page No: 6/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
continued in service with the terms and conditions of services as stipulated by the 7th respondent. In any case, the petitioners' employment cannot be brought to end by adopting any unfair mean or unfair labour practice by bringing other casual workers from the open market in order to displace the petitioners herein.
With these observations and directions, these Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of. No costs.”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
the order dated 29.08.2023 in W.P.No.19140 of 2010, wherein, in an
identical circumstances, a similar order was passed.
order in this Writ Petition also.
Page No: 7/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
accepted that the said order is applicable to the facts of the present case.
cases.
13.02.2024
ari
Page No: 8/10
Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citations : Yes/No To
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
1.The Secretary,Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviations, Government of India, New Delhi.
2.The Executive Director, Air India Ltd., National Aviation Company of India Ltd., NAC II(1), Airline House, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
3.The General Manager-Personnel, Air India Ltd., National Aviation Company of India Ltd., Airline House, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027.
4.The Deputy General Manager-Personal, Air India Ltd., Air Lines House, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
5.Manager-HR, Air India Air Transport Services Ltd., Air India Unity Complex, Pallavaram Cantonment, Chennai-600 043.
Page No: 9/10
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
BATTU DEVANAND,J.
ari
W.P.No.10967 of 2018
&
W.M.P.No.12876 of 2018
13.02.2024
Page No: 10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed permanently by the respondent Airlines despite lack of man power recruitment.
Whether the petitioner's employment must be protected as per the earlier judgment in W.P.No.17513 of 2010.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anonymous (Order dated 29.08.2023)Relied on¶48
W.P.No.19140 of 2010
M. Krishnamurthy
Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation
The Executive Director, Air India Ltd.
The General Manager-Personnel, Air India Ltd.
The Deputy General Manager-Personal, Air India Ltd.
Manager-HR, Air India Air Transport Services Ltd.
Battu Devanand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
