RAMA KRISHNA SAREEN Vs. PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who, at the time, was serving in the Indian Army, was posted, on deputation, as a pilot, with the respondent, with effect from 21st March, 2009. While he was thus employed, the petitioner superannuated from the Army on 31st May, 2011, whereupon he was appointed with the respondent as Assistant Flight Safety Officer with effect from 1st June, 2011.With effect from 1st August, 2011, the petitioner was appointed as Pilot "B", with the respondent, on contract basis, for five years. The following clauses, of the letter of appointment, dated 1st August, 2011, are relevant:

(2.) According to the petitioner, the respondent was operating the helicopters, under its control, in violation of various Flight Safety Rules prescribed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), resulting in avoidable fatal accidents, and that, despite his having repeatedly drawn the attention, of the respondent, to this fact, there was no improvement in the situation. In November, 2011, the petitioner was asked to fly a "Dhruv" helicopter, in Gadchiroli, in anti-naxal operations. The petitioner stopped flying the helicopter, for ten days, purportedly because of the inaction, by the respondent, regarding the protests, of the petitioner, regarding the manner in which the helicopters were being operated. On, however, being assured, by the respondent, that the interests of the pilots would be kept in mind, the petitioner resumed flying.

(3.) On one such mission, the helicopter, piloted by the petitioner at the time, met with an accident, on 15th January, 2012. There were, however, no casualties, though two crew members sustained serious injuries, and three crew members sustained minor injuries. An inquiry, into the incident, was conducted, by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, under Rule 74 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as "the Aircraft Rules"). The result of the inquiry attributed the mishap to be, at least in part, owing to the lack of skill and knowledge exhibited by the petitioner. While the inquiry was pending, the petitioner was requested to attend a refresher training, to be conducted between 13th and 15th February, 2012, to be followed by a test. He appeared in the said test, wherein, as per communication dated 2nd March, 2012 from the General Manager (OPS) to the General Manager (NR), it was informed that the performance of the petitioner - as well as of four other pilots who had been subjected to test - was "found to be marginal". As a result, the said communication had revoked, with immediate effect, the Pilot In Command (PIC) status of the said five pilots - including the petitioner. The GM (OPS) was, therefore, requested to inform the petitioner, inter alia, to appear in a retest, to be conducted on 13th March, 2012, further stating that the PIC status of the five pilots would be reinstated only after clearing all the three papers in the said retest.