Delhi High Court supports single-judge decision to restore Air India pilots

Delhi High Court supports single-judge decision to restore Air India pilots

Air India debated that once a pilot presents their resignation, the employer-employee relationship comes to a halt. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has supported a single-judge order that leave behind Air India's decision of ending the services of the carrier's pilots [Air India Limited v. Kanwardeep Singh Bamrah and Ors].

Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh detained,

"We find no good ground to disturb the final result arrived at by the single judge. We thus, terminate the requests."

The pilots had reached the Court challenging the Air India orders of accepting the resignations offered by the pilots when it was withdrawn before.

The single-judge had ruled against Air India leading to the present appeal before the Division Bench by Air India.

According to the Court, several pilots had moved forward with applications. It stated that they were no longer seeking restoration in service as they could not have enough money to be without a job, hence taken up other assignments.

Consequently only require the payment of back-wages till the time they found another jobs.

The Court thus held,

"Aforesaid employees would not be reinstated but would be entitled to back wages for the period spanning between the date when their resignations were accepted and the date when they found alternate employment."

The Bench pronounced that Air India had failed to discharge the responsibility in its defence raised regarding financial restraints.

"It has failed to cite any judicial precedent in support of its defence that would establish that the law concerning resignation, its withdrawal and acceptance is required to bear in mind the financial constraints of the employer," it said.

The judgment emphasised that:

"Financial difficulty cannot be cited as a ground for frustration of a contract, and, therefore, the State or its instrumentalities such as AIL cannot refuse to perform their obligations by adverting to weak financial position, in defence of its actions."

The state and its instrumentality were obliged to act as a model employer, according to the view of the Bench. It, therefore, cannot be seen to dispose the pilots' right to serve the organisation, Air India Limited in this case, at a point in time when finding jobs in the private sector is a difficult proposition.

"State and its instrumentalities are expected to look at myriad aspects and not just profits. Welfare of employees in times when jobs are difficult to come by should form a crucial ingredient of its decision making process. The State cannot be seen to cast off its social responsibility towards its employees and their families when it expects the private sector to bear that burden," it added.

The national air carrier had challenged the single-Judge's order, which had asked for reinstatement of the pilots.

It was Air India's case that once a pilot tenders his/ her resignation, succeeding acts of approval of resignation or the acceptance of withdrawal of resignation or the U-turn made thereafter in accepting the resignation would not influence the legal position. It emphasised that the employer-employee relationship came to an end the moment the resignation was tendered.

The matter related to 38 pilots in respect of whom the judgment was passed. These pilots had at one point or the other tendered their resignations but the air carrier had declined to accept their succeeding request for pulling out. The pilots before the High Court were permanent and those hired on based on contract.