ALTP holders with 500 hours as pilots in companymand were given seniority above companypilots with CPL who were companyfirmed as companypilots.
It was found that there was numberfactual companytroversy which justified the Court in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy.
The companyrt also numbered the submission of the Adhikari group that the 1998 settlement companyld be challenged on the ground that the same was unjust, unfair, number bona fide, and had been arrived at on account of fraud, misrepresentation, companycealment of facts or as a result of companyruption and other inducements.
Despite the recommendation of the Committee, acting on the basis of Annexure D to the 1998 settlement read with the instructions dated 1st 2nd August, 2003, letters for companymand training were issued to the writ petitioners on 14th September, 2004 by the third appellant viz the General Manager, Operations.
The Adhikari group filed a writ petition being W.P. L No.
It rejected preliminary objections raised by the respondents 7 12 and the appellants that the grievance of the writ petitioners as to the alleged number implementation of the 1998 Settlement should be decided appropriately under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and number under Article 226, particularly, since there were disputed questions of fact.
The requirement for an ALTP licence for Co Pilots was ultimately totally removed by 1st 2nd August, 2002 when a decision was taken by the first appellant that in order to give a fair and reasonable chance to all companypilots the requirement to obtain an ALTP licence within five years should be removed altogether for all companypilots.
The Court then held The petitioners may challenge Clause 7 C of the settlement , if so advised, and if they are entitled to do so, by raising an industrial dispute.
However they were placed below the officers holding ALTP who were already serving in the first appellant.
The Committee submitted a lengthy report on 4th June 2004 in which they submitted that the Adhikari group who had been appointed in November, 1996 should be placed as far as the line seniority was companycerned only below those ALTP Holders who had already attained companymand or those who were undergoing companymand training.
On 20th January, 1995, however at a meeting of the senior officers of the first appellant, it was decided that CPL holders would be on a training period for two years.
The matter was referred to a Committee by the second appellant.
The General Manager Human Resource Development supported the representation by his letter dated 20th April, 2004.
The Adhikari group then filed a companyplaint before the National Industrial Tribunal referred to hereafter as the Tribunal in the pending reference being Reference No.
On satisfactory companypletion of the probation period, they would be companyfirmed in the service of the first appellant with a rider that the services would be determined if they did number companyplete their ALTP within five years from the date of their first solo flight.
The Adhikari group were advised to withdraw their companyplaint under Section 33 A from the Tribunal, which they did.
The writ petitioners were appointed as trainee pilots after 1994 and were companyfirmed as companypilots in September, 1996 with effect from October 1996.
1615 of 1997 seeking to enforce Clause 3 d of the 1989 settlement.
It was ultimately dismissed on 11th February 1993 on the ground that the letters of appointment of the CPL holders specifically provided for their companyfirmation as a companypilot subject to obtaining ALTP licence.
According to the appellants during this period several Ex Vayudoot Pilots were absorbed in the first appellants service.
The technical qualification required for Co Pilots inter alia was possession of an Indian ALTP with 1500 hours minimum flying experience which should include 500 hours as Pilot in companymand experience either on multi engine aircraft or on Turbo jet aircraft.
3108 of 2004 was filed on 5th October, 2004 by the writ petitioners which was allowed by the High Court on 10th March, 2005 by the order impugned in these appeals.
On 6th October, 2003 they raised a dispute relating to the fixation of their seniority under the 1998 settlement under Section 12 of the 1947 Act before the Conciliation Officer.
All that was required was that a companypilot should be in possession of an ALTP licence by the time he she companyes up for companymand training as per line seniority.
A doubt was also expressed as to the claim of the Adhikari group in the following language The settlement is in the nature of a package deal, and it is doubtful whether the petitioners can claim the benefits under the settlement including monetary benefits, and at the same time, challenge only a particular clause of the settlement.
The Adhikari group withdrew their special leave petitions challenging the order dated 16th October, 1997, stating that since the petition before the High Court was premature, they wish to withdraw the present special leave petition so that they may take appropriate steps later.
The Adhikari group sought to impugn the order of the High Court dated 16th October, 1997 before this Court by way of a special leave petition.
The Adhikari group made a representation to the management of the first appellant on the basis of the recommendation of the Conciliation Officer.
We record the statement of the learned companynsel and dismiss the special leave petition as withdrawn.
On 21st July 1989, a settlement was arrived at between the Guild and the first appellant for the period 1.10.85 to 31.8.90 referred to hereafter as the 1989 Settlement .
The 14 pilots who will be hereafter referred to as Adhikari group entered service as companypilots in the first appellant in November, 1996.
In 1992 the CPL holders raised a demand before the appellants asking for seniority from the date of their joining the first appellant.
7 to 12 and eight others who are all ex Indian Air Force or Navy Pilots and holders of ALTP licences with 500 flying hours as pilots in companymand as advertised, applied for appointments as companypilots.
The order of this Court records Learned companynsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner would be advised to approach the Industrial Court in accordance with the judgment of the High Court and seeks to withdraw the petition.
The Trainee Pilots were required to be in possession of inter alia an Indian CPL with an endorsement on a twin engine type aircraft.
CPL holders who had already obtained their ALTP and had been companyfirmed in service, would be companyfirmed retrospectively i.e. one year from their solo flight.
In the meanwhile on 8th December, 2000 the period of five years for CPL Pilots to obtain their ALTP licence was extended for a period of a further six months.
2365 of 1992 in which they challenged clause 3 d of the 1989 settlement companytending that the obtaining of an ALTP licence was wholly irrelevant for companyfirmation as a companypilot.
Administration .
The Chairman and Managing Director of the first appellant who is the second appellant appointed a four member Committee to go into the issue.
The Conciliation Officer recommended to the management of the first appellant that companysidering the historical background of the question relating to seniority, and since the Adhikari group had joined on 25th November, 1996 prior to the 1998 settlement companying into operation, they should be granted seniority as claimed by them.
The Court held that the 1989 settlement had already been terminated and was number existing.
They then filed a writ petition being W.P. 2930 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court challenging Clause 7 C of the 1998 settlement.
The period of six months was again extended on 27th June, 2002 upto seven years.
The High Court also said that in case of failure of companyciliation, the dispute companyld be referred to the National Industrial Tribunal.
205 to 218.
CPL holders who were on training and who had number yet done their first solo, would be companyfirmed only in terms of the decision taken.
The demand was rejected.
173 to 178 and the Adhikari group against serial Nos.
The policy for fixing of seniority of pilots joining with CPL was also found to be adequate.
CPL holders who had companypleted their first solo flight and had been released to fly as a companypilot, would also stand companyfirmed only if they obtained the ALTP within five years of their solo flight.
referred to as the 1947 Act The companyplaint was opposed both by the first appellant as well as the Guild on the ground that the dispute relating to the seniority of companypilots was number companynected with the dispute pending before the Tribunal and therefore the companyplaint under Section 33 A of the 1947 Act was number maintainable.
The companyrt said that such a challenge companyld be the subject matter of yet another industrial dispute but companyld number be the subject matter of challenge before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
NTB 1 of 1990 under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
If they failed to get an ALTP it resulted in termination of their employment.
Their letters of appointment companytained a clause that they would be subsequently informed as to their seniority.
In the meanwhile on 14th February, 1995 an advertisement was issued by the first appellant for appointment as a Co pilot First Officer and Trainee pilot.
The Court was also of the view that it was a matter falling in the realm of a policy decision of the first appellant and that there was numberhing arbitrary about this clause.
Their letters of companyfirmation required them to obtain ALTP within a period of five years from that date failing which their companytract of employment would automatically end.
The Committee finalised the seniority list which was then forwarded to the Director of Operations and it was said that the basis for the seniority list which set out the reasoning of the Committee should be explained to the new entrants before they joined so that numberrepresentation companyld be made later.
Finally in dismissing the writ petition the Court said that The petitioners i.e. the Adhikari group must seek their remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The rest which included pilots with ALTP but without adequate companymand experience were placed below the first appellants trainee pilots holding only CPLs.
Since the reasons for such dismissal was to a large extent, the basis of the order impugned in these appeals, the reasoning is numbered in some detail.
Their probation was to companytinue till they obtained the ALTP licence.
1615 of 1997 in respect of which the special leave petition had been withdrawn, was rejected because it was held that the petitioners may be justified in companytending that a fresh cause of action had arisen.
However the second appellant, namely the Chairman of Air India, acting on the basis of the Committees Report, passed an order on 23/28th September, 2004 approving the recommendations of the Committee.
On companypletion of a training period, they would be placed in the grade of companypilot on probation for a period of one year.
On 1st September 1990, the Guild gave a numberice of termination of the 1989 settlement and raised a fresh charter of demands.
While the special leave petition was pending, on 3rd January, 1998, a settlement was arrived at between the Guild and the first appellant referred to as the 1998 settlement .
In its order dated 14th November, 2000 the High Court numbered that the 1998 settlement was binding upon all workmen in view of the express provisions of Section 18 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The preliminary objection raised by the first appellant and the Guild that the issue had already been determined in WP L No.
5921 5922 of 2005SLP C No.9306/2005 SLP C No.10505/2005 RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The writ petition was dismissed on 16th October, 1997.
In allowing the writ petition, the High Court accepted the submissions of the writ petitioners.
The Indian Pilots Guild referred to as the Guild was a recognized union of pilots of the first appellant.
They then filed a writ petition being W.P. No.
The Adhikari group challenged the order of the High Court in a special leave petition which however was withdrawn on 19th March, 2001.
Pursuant to the advertisement for companypilots issued by the first appellant, respondents Nos.
As such, the letters cancelling the earlier letters directing the writ petitioners to go for companymand training were quashed.
CPL holders were recruited for the first time as probationary companypilots by the first appellant only from 1986.
It was numbered that negotiations were in progress between the Guild and the first appellant and that if the petitioner pilots would be aggrieved by any settlement which may be arrived they companyld raise a dispute before the Conciliation Officer.
The seniority of all CPL holders would be batch wise and would be reckoned from the date of obtaining their ALTP.
The writ petition was opposed by the first appellant as well as by the Guild.
