The Delhi High Court recently held that writ petitions challenging labour tribunal awards involving Air India are maintainable despite the airline’s privatisation. [Suraj Singh v. Indian Airlines]
Justice Shail Jain held that even though Air India is now a private entity after its disinvestment, the High Court can still examine awards passed by a labour tribunal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The Court said that such petitions are not directed merely against Air India as a private employer, but against the adjudicatory process and the awards passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT).
“Once a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal renders an award, such award is subject to judicial review by the High Court under Articles 226/227. In such cases, the writ is directed against the adjudicatory process and the award itself, not merely the private entity,” the Court held.
The Court was deciding a batch of writ petitions filed by casual workers of the erstwhile Indian Airlines. They had challenged CGIT awards which held their termination illegal but granted only monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.
The workers had rendered services to Indian Airlines between 1993 and 1998. The CGIT found that their termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
However, instead of ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, the tribunal awarded compensation of ₹25,000, ₹40,000 and ₹55,000, depending on the length of service.
Air India raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitions. It argued that after its takeover by Talace India Private Limited in 2022, it ceased to be “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and was no longer amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Court said that while Air India may not ordinarily be amenable to writ jurisdiction as a private entity, labour tribunal awards can still be examined by the High Court.
"In such cases, the writ is directed against the adjudicatory process and the award itself, not merely the private entity. Therefore, the High Court can entertain a writ petition even where the underlying dispute involves a private employer, provided it emanates from a tribunal’s award."
On merits, the Court upheld the finding that the retrenchment was illegal. It noted that the workers had completed 240 days of continuous service and were terminated without notice, wages or retrenchment compensation.
However, the Court refused reinstatement. It noted that the dispute was nearly three decades old and that the workers were casual and daily-rated employees.
At the same time, the Court found the CGIT’s compensation inadequate. Thus it enhanced the compensation.
Advocate Aayushi Jain appeared for petitioner Sauraj Singh.
Advocates Anuj Aggarwal, Divya Aggarwal, Bhumika Kundra, Shubham Bahl, Nikhil Pawar, Tanya Rose, Kritika Matta, Lovekesh Chauhan, Anjali Bansal, Shreya Gupta and Pradeep Kumar appeared for the workmen’s union.
Air India was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose with Advocates Rohan Mandal, Deeksha Arora, Rajesh Ranjan, AS Rastogi and Shiv Kant Arora.
[Read Judgment]