Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: May 12, 2017 + W.P.(C) 5202/2010 INDIAN AIRLINES KAMGAR SANGTHAN ........ Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joy Basu, Senior Advocate with Mr.Saket Sikri, Ms. Ekta Sikri, Mr. Abhinav & Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocates Versus NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD AND ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Ratna D. Dhingra & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % ORAL JUDGMENT1... Petitioner
is Indian Airlines Kamgar Sangthan, who seeks regularization of its members in this writ petition without disclosing the names and particulars of members of petitioner- Union/ Sangthan. It is also not disclosed in this writ petition as to the dates on which the members of petitioner-Union were initially appointed and for how long they have worked. In any W.P.(C) 5202/2010 Page 1 case, it is evident from the counter filed by respondents that members of petitioner-Union are casual workers, who are working as daily wager employees in compliance of judgment of 9th July, 1997 and 21st August, 1998 in W.P.(C) 4113/1994 & W.P.(C) 2644/1997. It is also disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by respondent that there is a ban on fresh recruitments in the category of Helpers, Peons etc., as the respondent is going through turbulent times and is facing critical financial situation and on account of ongoing changes in civil aviation scenario, Government policy etc., the assessment of long term impact has to be taken and as a result of merger and amalgamation of India Airlines and Air India, the entire company has to be reorganized and is likely to lead to redundancies of various posts and vacancies.
2. Whereas in the rejoinder filed by petitioner-Union, it has been asserted that recruitment has been going on large scale and there is requirement of additional work force. In this regard, attention of this Court was drawn by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner to various information obtained under The Right to Information Act, 2005, which indicates that by the Managing Director of respondent, various queries were put on the recommendations made for employment on commission or direct recruitment. W.P.(C) 5202/2010 Page 2 3. It is true that a Division Bench of this Court way back in the year 1998 had directed vide order of 21st August, 1998 that an opportunity be given to members of petitioner-Union for being considered for regular employment whenever regular vacancies are filled up and necessary relaxation in age limit be also considered. Thereafter, request for regularization was made by petitioner-Union through its Secretary way back on 12th October, 2004 but there was no response to the said representation.
4. It is pertinent to note that in this petition, the issue raised is crystallized vide order of 14th January, 2013 to the effect that members of petitioner-Union who had completed ten years’ service on a post duly sanctioned would be entitled to be considered for regularization in the light of Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC1... RESPONDENTS
have not shown as to why members of petitioner-Union cannot be considered for regularization in view of Supreme Court’s decision in Umadevi (supra).
5. During the course of hearing, respondents’ counsel has placed on record a copy of order of 19th January, 2016 in SLP (C) No.13361/2010 Gujarat Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. Indian Airlines Limited wherein Supreme Court has taken into W.P.(C) 5202/2010 Page 3 consideration the ban on recruitment while noticing that against sanctioned posts of 4500, almost 12000 employees are working and out of them, nearly 4700 are casual employees in Air India and its subsidiaries and so it was declared by Supreme Court that Award of regularization of service cannot be sustained. Despite the aforesaid order of 19th January, 2016, learned senior counsel for petitioner maintains that if there are vacancies, members of petitioner-Union can be absorbed.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon going through the record of this case and the decisions cited, I find that since the factual position is not crystallized, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition while giving an opportunity to members of petitioner-Union to make a comprehensive and effective representation disclosing the names and particulars of its members who claim regularization. If any such representations are made to first respondent within four weeks, then it be duly considered by respondent in the light of order of this Court dated 21st August, 1998 in W.P.(C)4113/1994 and if there are any vacancies against which any of the member of petitioner-Union can be absorbed after taking into consideration the vacancy position after January, 2016 till date. Let a speaking order be passed by respondent No.1 on representation of petitioner’s members W.P.(C) 5202/2010 Page 4 within twelve weeks from the date when such a representation is received and the fate of representation be made known to petitioner-Union within three weeks thereafter.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties to ensure compliance of this order within the stipulated time line. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE May 12, 2017 r W.P.(C) 5202/2010 Page 5