Delhi HC dismisses petitions moved by Air India engineers

New Delhi [India], February 8 : The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed the petitions moved by the All India Aircraft Engineers Association and Air India Aircraft Engineers Association challenging the orders of cut in allowance and leave without pay upto five years and reduction in flying hours in case of pilots.
Justice V Kameswar Rao said, "Petitions are dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the Ministry of Civil Aviation, to review the impugned decision, if they are empowered to do so in respect of AIESL."
Justice Rao said that he did not find any merit in the submission.
"The impugned decisions are of Air India and its subsidiary AIESL on the directives of the Ministry of Civil Aviation as admitted by Counsel for respondents. Air India and AIESL are/were funded by the Government of India as such the latter has a pervasive control. Therefore, the action has a public law element, as such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," he added.
The bench further said that given the circumstances arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the impugned decisions are taken to keep the entities afloat. Moreover, the rationalisation was done uniformly across the board without any discrimination only to avoid any drastic action.
These two petitions were filed by the All India Aircraft Engineers Association and Air India Aircraft Engineers Association. One of the petitioners sought direction for disbursal of salary of the petitioner Association on time.
Petitioners had challenged the office order of July 23, 2020 whereby the respondent AI Engineering Services Ltd (AIESL) had rationalised the allowances of employees of AIESL which includes Aircraft Maintenance Engineers along with others.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, the counsel of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order by which allowances have been reduced, has been passed unilaterally without consultation and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
He laid stress on the fact that the respondent company AIESL was running in profits, as per the admission in the impugned order itself. Furthermore, no financial emergency had been declared at the time of issuance of the impugned order.
Senior Counsel also submitted that the members of the association were also working throughout the pandemic inasmuch as they worked on the mission Vande Bharat mission, which was successful and was lauded everywhere.
The grievance of the petitioner is the unequal cuts in the gross pay due to economic measures imposed the respondent AIESL has no rationale with respect to imposing different deductions for the employees working under it.
Senior Advocate Hegde had submitted that an affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court wherein it was specifically stated that the members of the petitioner association would be getting pay, allowances and other benefits as applicable to them had they continued in the parent company.
Respondent, Union of India, has violated the terms of the affidavit submitted by them before the Supreme Court by imposing a discriminatory wage cut by selecting different parameters/allowances for the deduction for the employees of the respondent (Air India) and AIESL, Hegde stated.
That apart, the impugned office order has been passed in a discriminatory manner inasmuch as the impugned office order has cleverly included the special allowances i.e. special pay, qualification pay (license/approval allowance), other allowances (linked to basic pay) and personal pay in the cut.
Owing to the same, the top management and other officials in HR/Finance/Commercial Departments have only one component i.e., other allowances (50 per cent of basic) which comes to only 7 per cent as an actual deduction in salary whereas the engineers have the cut in all components wherever words "Allowance" and "Personal Pay" are suffixed which amounts to approximately 21 per cent deduction in salary, Hegde said.
Hedge said this action of the respondents of imposing a non-uniform and discriminatory deduction against the petitioner association is illegal and arbitrary. In the case of pilots the deduction was reduced from 40 per cent ot 35 per cent but in the case of petitioner associations, even after repeated representations, no steps were taken.
The second petition moved was against the five orders issued on March 20, 2020, July 22, 2020, July 14, 2020, leave with pay scheme dated July 21, 2020, and of December 18, 2020, by the Central Government.
The order of July 14, 2020, and of July 21, 2020, required an employee selected by the committee to go on compulsory leave without pay for a period of six months or for two years which was extendable up to five years. During the hearing on January 12, 2021, the Central Government had submitted before the court that the order dated July 14, 2020, has not been given effect and there is no decision to implement the same.
According to the second petition, the respondents through the impugned orders sought to impose deductions starting from 10 per cent and going up to 40 per cent and thereafter reduced it to 35 per cent on the allowances of the various employees including the petitioners.
The petitioner counsel had stressed the fact that during the pre-Covid era, the flying allowances of the pilots were fixed at a minimum of 70 hours in a month and the hourly rate was fixed at Rs 6800 to Rs. 7000 per hour.
He submitted, however, after the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, the flying hours were reduced to 20 hours in a month and the hourly rate had been reduced to Rs 3500 to Rs 4080 per hour. This deduction in the hourly rate of pay and the elimination of a guaranteed payment of 70 hours of flying related allowances imposes a double prejudice on the pilots.
Finally, he submitted that after the onslaught of the Covid pandemic, the role of the flying crew of Air India was lauded the world over. The petitioner body along with the other flying crew have successfully conducted 2449 flights and ferried 3,30,077 passengers safely around the world under the central government's Vande Bharat Mission.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent AIESL justified the impugned decision by contending that the petitioners received a very high salary/ emoluments and it does not lie in their mouth to raise a grievance against the rationalisation of allowances as the effect thereof is very minimal, apart from being fully justified.
He stated that extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures. The Covid pandemic has resulted in a catastrophic situation, causing an adverse impact on the aviation sector. It is a matter of common knowledge that all airlines all over the world have taken far more stringent measures, including large scale retrenchment.
Counsel finally submitted that no employee, including engineers and pilots have been retrenched. Basic pay, VDA and HRA have not been deducted for any category of the employees. The rate of the deduction depends upon the quantum of the allowances.
He also submitted that apart from the huge accumulated losses of about Rs. 50,000 Crores, the Central Government is extending cash relief of Rs 250 Crores a month, i.e., around Rs 3,000 Crores a year, of public/tax payers' money to Air India, which has affected the finances of AIESL as well, since AIESL is a fully owned subsidiary of Air India.