The Delhi High Court recently directed the reinstatement of over 40 Air India pilots, quashing their termination by the national airline..A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that financial constraints or impact of the pandemic cannot be claimed as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees, in the manner adopted in the present case.The Court, therefore, directed that the pilots are entitled to back wages commencing from the date of expiry of their respective notice periods of six months and up to the date of reinstatement..For those whose 'Fixed Term Contracts' is set to expire, the Court said that the Air India shall consider the renewal/extension subject to satisfactory performance of the pilots, in accordance with the terms of the Contracts..In the present batch of petitions, challenge was to the Air India orders accepting the resignations tendered by the Petitioner-Pilots even after the same were withdrawn. .The orders were predicated primarily on an alleged financial crunch and the effect of COVID-19 on its operations. .Some of the Petitioner-Pilots had approached the High Court prior to passing of the order when the notice period was about to expire, alleging that Air India was not permitting them to continue flying in spite of despite withdrawal of resignations. .The Petitioner-Pilots submitted that as per the rules applicable to them, a Pilot is required to serve a six months' notice if he intended to tender resignation. Since it was an undisputed fact that prior to their acceptance, the resignations were withdrawn, Air India could not have accepted the non est resignations..In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court noted that a resignation tendered by an employee indicating a prospective or a future date of resignation, can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted, in the absence of a contrary service rule. ."A corollary, if the resignation is withdrawn prior to its acceptance, it is not open to the employer to accept the resignation, as the same is non-existent and non est in the eyes of law," the Court said. .Admittedly, the present case, both permanent and contractual pilots were governed by Civil Aviation Requirement which mandates a notice period of six months for tendering resignation. .At the end of the notice period, Air India was required to issue an NOC to the Pilot concerned but there was no requirement of seeking prior permission for making an application for withdrawal of the resignation. .Further, there was no Rule prohibiting withdrawal of resignation either, the Court noted..In view of the above, the Court concluded, ."..the inevitable position that emerges is that the Petitioners had a right to withdraw the resignations on various dates that they did, prior to their acceptance and position adopted by the Respondent, to the contrary is unacceptable.".The Court further opined that State or its Agencies under Article 12 of the Constitution could not claim financial constraints or impact of the pandemic as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees, in the manner adopted in the present case. ."State has a fiduciary duty to perform towards the citizens under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution and thus it becomes the bounden duty of a welfare State to secure the rights of livelihood of the citizens...financial crunch cannot be a relevant consideration in deciding the issue of acceptance of resignations," the Court held..The Court added that in any event, it was an admitted case that the financial distress was not a creation of COVID-19 but existed from the year 2007 and that no permanent employee had been retrenched or terminated or laid off or in anymanner. .The entire exercise of grant of arrears of salary and other emoluments shall be carried out and completed by Air India within a period of six weeks, the Court said..[Read Judgement]
The Delhi High Court recently directed the reinstatement of over 40 Air India pilots, quashing their termination by the national airline..A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that financial constraints or impact of the pandemic cannot be claimed as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees, in the manner adopted in the present case.The Court, therefore, directed that the pilots are entitled to back wages commencing from the date of expiry of their respective notice periods of six months and up to the date of reinstatement..For those whose 'Fixed Term Contracts' is set to expire, the Court said that the Air India shall consider the renewal/extension subject to satisfactory performance of the pilots, in accordance with the terms of the Contracts..In the present batch of petitions, challenge was to the Air India orders accepting the resignations tendered by the Petitioner-Pilots even after the same were withdrawn. .The orders were predicated primarily on an alleged financial crunch and the effect of COVID-19 on its operations. .Some of the Petitioner-Pilots had approached the High Court prior to passing of the order when the notice period was about to expire, alleging that Air India was not permitting them to continue flying in spite of despite withdrawal of resignations. .The Petitioner-Pilots submitted that as per the rules applicable to them, a Pilot is required to serve a six months' notice if he intended to tender resignation. Since it was an undisputed fact that prior to their acceptance, the resignations were withdrawn, Air India could not have accepted the non est resignations..In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, the High Court noted that a resignation tendered by an employee indicating a prospective or a future date of resignation, can be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted, in the absence of a contrary service rule. ."A corollary, if the resignation is withdrawn prior to its acceptance, it is not open to the employer to accept the resignation, as the same is non-existent and non est in the eyes of law," the Court said. .Admittedly, the present case, both permanent and contractual pilots were governed by Civil Aviation Requirement which mandates a notice period of six months for tendering resignation. .At the end of the notice period, Air India was required to issue an NOC to the Pilot concerned but there was no requirement of seeking prior permission for making an application for withdrawal of the resignation. .Further, there was no Rule prohibiting withdrawal of resignation either, the Court noted..In view of the above, the Court concluded, ."..the inevitable position that emerges is that the Petitioners had a right to withdraw the resignations on various dates that they did, prior to their acceptance and position adopted by the Respondent, to the contrary is unacceptable.".The Court further opined that State or its Agencies under Article 12 of the Constitution could not claim financial constraints or impact of the pandemic as a ground for dispensing the services of its employees, in the manner adopted in the present case. ."State has a fiduciary duty to perform towards the citizens under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution and thus it becomes the bounden duty of a welfare State to secure the rights of livelihood of the citizens...financial crunch cannot be a relevant consideration in deciding the issue of acceptance of resignations," the Court held..The Court added that in any event, it was an admitted case that the financial distress was not a creation of COVID-19 but existed from the year 2007 and that no permanent employee had been retrenched or terminated or laid off or in anymanner. .The entire exercise of grant of arrears of salary and other emoluments shall be carried out and completed by Air India within a period of six weeks, the Court said..[Read Judgement]
