AIR INDIA LTD Vs. INDIAN PILOTS GUILD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE employer - Air India is aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), 2nd respondent herein, dated 13th September, 2004. By the said order the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central) disposed of the application made by the respondent union for recognition of its office bearers, as 'protected workmen' under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. By the impugned order the Assistant labour Commissioner (Central) was pleased to allow the application moved by the petitioners.

(2.) TWO office bearers of the respondent No. 1 were granted status of protected workmen for the year 2003 - 2004. Respondent No. 1 by letter dated 19th January, 2004, forwarded the names of Capt. Vikrant Sansare, General secretary of the Union at serial No. 1 and Capt. V. Kooner, Vice President of the union, at serial No. 2, as the workmen to be accorded the status of 'protected workmen' for the period 2004 to 2005, under section 33 (4) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes (C) Rules, 1957. The respondents also requested that in conformity with the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, to confer the status of 'protected Workmen' to the two workmen within 15 days of the receipt of the intimation. As respondent No. 1 did not receive any reply a reminder was addressed on 8-3-2004. There were no reply to the same. From the record it transpires that on June 16, 2003 the President of another association known as the Air-India Pilots Association had addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that Management should deal with the Air India line Pilots' Association as the majority of the Line Pilots had lost confidence in the de-recognized Indian Pilots Guild and that they represented the majority of the line pilots and their union was registered on 2nd June, 2003. As per the averments in the petition out of 270 line pilots the strength of members of respondent No. 1 had been reduced to less than 107. It may be mentioned that this union, from the pleadings, had not applied for status of protected workmen for any of its members or office bearers. As the status of protected workmen was not agreed to by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 by letter dated 17th May, 2004 called upon respondent No. 2 as competent authority, under Rule 61 (4) to decide the dispute between an employer and a registered trade union in the matter of recognition of 'protected workmen' under the rule. It was further set out that as the respondent No. 1 had complied with the requirements of Rule 61 (1), and the provisions of section 33 they were entitled to have atleast two of their office bearers recognized as 'protected workmen'. The 2nd respondent by notice dated 12th July, 2004 called on the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to remain present before him in the matter of the application filed by respondent No. 1 under rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central) Rules, 1957.

(3.) IN reply to the notice issued by respondent No. 2 the petitioners by their communication of July 26/29, 2004 gave their comments. Firstly they contended that the respondent Indian Pilots' Guild had been de-recognized by the management of Air India with effect from 29th April, 2003. It was then contended that some pilots of the petitioner had formed a new Trade Union by name Air India Line Pilots' Association and informed the Management vide its letter dated 16th June, 2003 that they were representing the majority of the line pilots and that the line pilots numbering about 160 were their members. It was then contended that there were-claims from both Indian Pilots' Guild as well as air India Line Pilots' Association. Lastly it was contended that as per practice, the Management of Air India is not according the status of protected workmen to the office bearers of an unrecognized Union in Air India and that respondent no. 1 is a de-recognized Union and as such the status of protected workmen has not been accorded by the Management.