Writ petitions no longer maintainable against Air India owing to airline's privatisation: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that writ petitions brought by Air India Ltd (AIL) employees against the company over salaries and promotions are no longer maintainable in light of the airline's privatisation [RS Madireddy and Anr. vs The Union of India and Ors.]..A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik said that although the petitions were maintainable when they were instituted, the privatisation of AIL took it beyond the court's jurisdiction to issue a writ, order or direction to the company."The writ petitions, although maintainable on the dates they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable by reason of privatization of AIL which takes it beyond our jurisdiction to issue a writ or order or direction to it," the Court stated. .The Court was hearing petitions filed by retired employees of AIL against the airline and the Union of India, alleging violations of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution on account of stagnation in pay as well as non-promotion.The question before the Court was whether the petitions should be decided as per facts as on the date of institution or whether events fundamentally impacting the jurisdiction of the court will render the petitions non-maintainable..Senior Advocate Sanjay Singhvi on behalf of the petitioners contended that in the interest of justice and equity, privatisation of the airline should not render the petitions non-maintainable and the Court must adjudicate with reference to facts as on the date of institution of the petition.The nature of the petitioners’ employment, he contended, was and always has been of a public nature, and since all the writ petitions plead violation of Articles 14 and 21, the nature of the petitioners’ employment and the rights flowing from the same could not have changed merely because the Government of India sold its shares in AIL to Talace Pvt. Ltd.He also alleged that AIL was colluding with the Union of India to defeat rights of the petitioners by keeping them in the dark about who has taken over the liabilities arising out of the writ petitions..On the other hand, Senior Advocate Darius Khambatta, on behalf of AIL, contended that the question of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution must be decided considering the events subsequent to the filing of a writ petition..The Court, relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, noted that the issue of maintainability of writ petitions owing to privatisation of a company was no longer res-integra.It, therefore, ruled that in light of privatisation of the company, its jurisdiction to issue a writ did not subsist."The change in the status of the ‘authority’ against whom the writ was initially claimed plays a significant role in determining the issue of maintainability," the Court made it clear. Further, the Court acknowledged that it could not decide the petitions during the long years of their pendency which was bound to have shattered the hopes and aspirations of the employees. It also expressed regret at its inability to decide the petitions prior to privatisation."It is a fact that this Court could not decide these writ petitions during the long years of its pendency, which is bound to have shattered the hopes and aspirations of retired employees like the petitioners. However, at the same time, such inability to decide these writ petitions prior to privatization of AIL was due to reasons absolutely beyond the control of this Court, as admitted by Mr. Singhvi even. Notwithstanding the same, this Court, through its Chief Justice, regrets its inability to so decide prior to privatization of AIL," the court recorded. Thereafter, while disposing of the petitions, the court stated that the time of pendency of the case will not be counted for calculating limitation period in case the petitioners wished to pursue a different remedy in accordance with law..[Read Judgment]