Airline pilots are ‘workmen’ under Industrial Disputes Act irrespective of salary: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that airline pilots perform skilled and technical work and fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [King Airways Vs Captain Pritam Singh].

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the observation while rejecting appeals filed by King Airways against labour court orders directing payment of unpaid salary and other dues to its pilots

The Court delivered the judgment on December 11 while deciding a batch of appeals arising from disputes between King Airways and three of its pilots — Captain Pritam Singh, Manjit Singh and ND Kathuria.

"We have already rendered a finding that the Respondent herein verily falls within the four corners of the definition of a “Workman” in Section 2(s) given the skilled and technical nature of functions he/she performs. Resultantly, there arises no need for recourse to the exceptions enumerated in Section 2(s) and in particular Section 2(s)(iv) thereof which speaks of a person employed in a supervisory capacity or the stipulation pertaining to the salary of such persons," the Court said.

The appeals challenged a common judgment by a single-judge of the High Court who had upheld orders of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Delhi's Karkardooma courts.

The Tribunal had allowed the pilots’ claims for unpaid salary, incentives for extra flying hours and other pay components withheld by the airline.

King Airways argued that the pilots were not “workmen” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. It contended that pilots, particularly those designated as Pilot-in-Command or Captain, discharged supervisory functions over crew members during flight operations and drew wages well above the statutory threshold under Section 2(s)(iv).

The airline relied on appointment letters, salary structure, duties performed as an “Examiner”, the operations manual and Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which refers to the Pilot-in-Command supervising and directing other crew members.

It was further argued that the grant of back wages was contrary to Supreme Court precedent, including Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, which holds that back wages are not automatic.

However, the Division Bench upheld the single-judge verdict and held that pilots are highly skilled technical personnel whose primary function is flying the aircraft.

“It has already been held that pilots are highly skilled personnel who carry out technical and operational duties, their primary and foremost function being the flying of the aircraft,” the Court said.

On the airline’s reliance on Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, the Bench said that the use of the word “supervise” could not be determinative in labour law.

“Although Rule 141 may employ the expression ‘supervise’, nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that any actual supervisory authority is, in practice, exercised by the pilot-in-charge over the crew members.”

The Court further held that salary levels were irrelevant to the determination of workman status unless it can be established that the pilot was performing only supervisory functions.

“The salary component that is being raised is simply a red herring… It cannot, however, be relied upon to determine whether a person is, in the first instance, a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act," the Bench concluded.

The Court thus dismissed the appeals filed by the airline.

King Airways was represented by Senior Advocates Amit Rawal and Pradeep Bakshi with advocate Rishika

Pilots were represented by advocate Shohit Chaudhry