CAPT. RAJEEVAN THOTTEN Vs. AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) These writ petitions are filed challenging the notices issued to the petitioners intimating the discontinuance of their contractual engagements as Trainee Captain/Captain (Flying Officer) under the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the petitioners, who are highly experienced pilots, had been appointed on contract basis in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and their contracts were being renewed from time to time. It is submitted that the terms of service were also appropriately revised, as evident from Exhibits P3 and P4. It is submitted that the contract of employment was valid and subsisting. While so, on 24/8/2020, the petitioners were served with notices stating that their contract appointments stood terminated, in view of the prevailing civil aviation scenario. They were paid one month's salary as notice pay in lieu of the one month's notice. It is contended that though the petitioners had approached the respondents with requests for retention, the said requests were rejected. However, it is contended that there was an undertaking held out to the petitioners that the 1st respondent would hire them back before opening the positions held by them to other applicants as soon as there are reasonable signs of demand revival. It is contended that contrary to the undertaking held out, employment notices were issued for the very same positions, however, fixing the age limit as 55 years as on 1/1/2022 disabling the petitioners to apply. The petitioners again approached the respondents with representations, but no action was taken thereon. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court seeking re-engagment on a contract basis and challenging the orders of termination. Alternative prayers for compensation for the arbitrary and illegal termination and consequent financial and mental distress are also sought for.

(3.) Detailed counter affidavits have been placed on record by the respondents. It is contended therein that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since the Air India Express Ltd. has been subjected to privatization and the Government of India has sold 50% of its stake in the company to Talace Private Limited, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tata Group's holding company Tata Son's Pvt.Ltd. It is submitted that the writs and directions, as sought for, cannot, therefore, be issued against the respondents which is no longer an instrumentality of the State under the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioners, who had been engaged on contract had received the notice pay as well as all the amounts which were liable to them on termination of the contract and that the writ petition filed after receiving all dues is completely unjustifiable. It is contended that the reply given to the petitioners' representations did not hold out any assurance that they would be positively re-engaged. It is contended that the petitioners are long serving pilots, who have retired from service and their contractual appointments were post retiral engagements. It is contended that they cannot be equated with fresh hands, who are required in the industry and that the contractual appointees, governed by the terms of the contract, have no right to any other claim except for notice pay. It is further contended that those of the petitioners who had attended the interview pursuant to the fresh selection had been considered for re-engagmenet and that the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1722/2022 had been so re-engaged pursuant to a walk in interview.