INDIAN AIRLINES Vs. AIRLINES CABIN CREW ASSN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDIAN Airlines, petitioner herein, by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the reference made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, for adjudication of an alleged industrial dispute between the petitioner and Airlines Cabins Crew Association, respondent 2 herein. As per the case of the petitioner, its employees are represented by Air Corporation Employees Union, hereinafter referred to as ACEU, which is recognised by the petitioner to be the sole bargaining agent in respect of various service conditions of various categories of employees including cabin crew and flight steward. As per the case of the petitioner, a settlement was signed by ACEU and the petitioner on October 5, 1987 in conciliation in respect of terms and conditions of service of the workmen including that of cabin crew. On May 8, 1987, the ACEU submitted a charter of demands to the petitioner in respect of terms and conditions of service of various categories of employees of the petitioner including the category of cabin crew. The petitioner entered into the agreement with ACEU and memo of understanding was signed on December 4, 1988 in full and final settlement of the charter of demands. The currency of this settlement was till August 31, 1990. The agreement in the form of memorandum of understanding also covered the categories of cabin crew, which categories are alleged to be represented by respondent 2. The said agreement is binding on various categories of employees of the petitioner including the category of cabin crew. As per the case of the petitioner, the aforesaid agreement was implemented and almost all the cabin crew have taken benefit of the said agreement. The agreement with ACEU which also includes the demands concerning the cabin crew is just, fair and reasonable and the same stands implemented by virtue of action of the individual cabin crew members having accepted the terms thereof. It has been further pleaded that respondent 2 raised an industrial dispute on September 12, 1988, by giving a strike notice at the time when the terms and conditions of service of cabin crew were governed by subsisting settlement signed on October 5, 1987 by ACEU during conciliation with the petitioner. On the basis of the strike notice, dated September 12, 1988, conciliation proceedings were held by respondent 4 which ended in failure and thereafter a reference was made vide letter, dated September 14, 1989, of 34 demands raised by respondent 2 on the management of Indian Airlines to be adjudicated upon by the Central Industrial Tribunal at Delhi. According to the petitioner, before the reference was made, the petitioner had already entered into a settlement with ACEU on July 21, 1989. Reference made by respondent 1 vide order, dated September 14, 1989, is illegal, unjustified and unfair. No industrial dispute exists between the petitioner and the cabin crew members. Barring a few cases, almost all the cabin crew members have accepted the on-account payment in terms of the said agreement entered into between the management of the petitioner, and the ACEU. As per the case of the petitioner overwhelming cabin crew members by their individual action have accepted the terms of the settlement thereby nullifying the effect of the strike notice dated September 12, 1988, given by respondent 2.

(2.) RESPONDENT 2 i. e. , the Airlines Cabin Crew Association denied the averment made by the petitioner in the writ petition and pleaded, inter alia, that ACEU is not duly and validly registered union to represent the cabin crew of Indian Airlines and, therefore, is barred from representing workmen under Sub-section 2 (q) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent 2, i. e. , Airlines Cabin Crew Association represents overwhelming cabin crew who are its members. The alleged settlement signed by the petitioner on October 5, 1987 in conciliation pertains to the period from 1981 to 1985 and respondent 2 served notice on March 29, 1988 terminating the said settlement. It is further stated that respondent 2 raised charter of demands, dated November 24, 1987, regarding wages and service conditions with effect from October 1, 1985. New wage settlement has already been signed in July 1989 which replaces the settlement of October 5, 1987. The terms and conditions in the wage settlement of July 1989 have been specifically excluded from the reference before the Central Industrial Tribunal. It has been denied that the memorandum of understanding signed on December 4, 1980 is in full and final settlement of the charter of demands of ACEU. As per own letter of the petitioner addressed to ACEU certain point regarding the service conditions of cabin crew, like career, promotion, rationalisation of working hours, will remain to be discussed and to be examined separately. Respondent 2 further stated that the memorandum of understanding, dated December 4, 1988, is not full and final settlement as alleged. The terms and conditions of the settlement, dated July 21, 1989, have been specifically excluded from the terms of reference before the Tribunal and, therefore, the reference before the Tribunal is legal and justified. Earlier settlement pertains only to the issues like demands for basic pay, DA, HRA, CCA and these issues have been specifically excluded from the reference in dispute.

(3.) FROM the record it is apparent that there are two trade unions, i. e. , Air Corporation Employees Union, in short ACEU, which is recognised by the management of the Indian Airlines Cor-poration and the other is Airlines Cabin Crew Association (respondent 2 ). Both these unions allege to represent the case of various employees of the petitioner Corporation. The Airlines Cabin Crew Association however alleges that it is a separate union to look after the demand of cabin crew. It is also on record that the petitioner corporation has been entering into settlements with ACEU with respect to demands of employees of various categories of the petitioner Corporation including demand of cabin crew also. Air Corporation Employees Union (ACEU) entered into a settlement in respect of pay-scales and other conditions of service of employees of Indian Airlines Corporation and award was passed in terms of that settlement. Afterwards the said union made a demand in respect of conditions of service of the employees including cabin crew. The Airlines Cabin Crew Association challenged the right of ACEU in entering into a settlement in respect of conditions of service of cabin crew by filing a writ petition before Bombay High Court. It was ruled that when majority of the cabin crew have accepted the settlement and received benefits under the settlement then it will be binding on the cabin crew and a group of employees cannot oppose the settlement and claim as not binding on them. Merely because a few cabin crew have some objection to the settlement entered into between Airlines and ACEU it cannot be ignored when the majority has accepted it and taken advantage of the same.