INDIAN PILOTS GUILD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Pilots of Air India have come up with a grievance that Air India has introduced direct non-stopping flights to London and in the process by issue of a unilateral order has increased their flight-time and flight-duty-time. This has violated the settlement arrived at on 22nd September, 1971. That settlement was reiterated in the settlements of 2nd April 1982 and 20th November, 1984. The unilateral action on the part of the Air India of increasing the flight-time and the flight-duty-time of the Pilots is an affront to the valuable rights of the Pilots under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act) as also under the aforesaid settlements 1971, 1982 and 1984. The impugned order has been motivated solely for the purpose of profit-making. It has ignored the safety measures in regard to the crew and the passengers and hence is liable to be struck down.

(2.) The Indian Pilots Guild, representing the Pilots of Air India, has averred that after elaborate collective bargaining it had reached an amicable bilateral agreement with their employers, the Air India, which agreement was signed between the parties as far back as on 22nd September, 1971. That agreement, after defining "flight duty time" and "flight time", prescribed the total "flight time" at 9 hrs. and "flight duty time" at 12 hrs. It provided that the flight duty time could be extended beyond 12 hours, en route, by two hours only and that too at the sole discretion of the Commander. According to the petitioners, this agreement dated 22nd September, 1971 in respect of the flight duty hours remained unchanged. The subsequent settlements dated 2nd April, 1982 and 20th November, 1984 in clear terms provided that all existing agreements/settlements shall continue to remain in force except in so far as they are specifically modified or amended. Since the settlements of 2nd April, 1982 and 20th November, 1984 had not specifically modified or amended the flight-time and the fiight-duty-time prescribed by the settlement dated 22nd September, 1971, the same were specifically saved.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the agreement dated 22nd September, 1971 is a settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act. That settlement had, therefore, a statutory binding force as contemplated under Section 18 of the I.D. Act. Even if the said agreement of the 22nd September, 1971 was not a settlement within the meaning of Section (p) of the I.D. Act as held by his Honour Judge Shri G.H. Guttal (as he then was) in the Notice of Motion in Short Cause Suit No. 6903 of 1974, the terms contained in the said agreement having been embodied in the subsequent settlements of the 2nd April, 1982 ana 20th November, 1984, were deemed to constitute settlements within the meaning of Section 2 (p) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner further contended that the view expressed in Short Cause Suit No. 6903 of 1974, that the agreement dated 22nd September, 1971 was not a settlement within, the meaning of Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act, was no longer good in view of the subsequent decisions in the case of Ail India Cabin Crew Association and Ors. v. Air India reported in 1981, II LLJ, 306 and in the case of Workmen of Hindustan Lever Limited v. Hindustan Lever Limited reported in 1984 II LLJ. page 391. It is further contended that under Section 19(2) of the I.D. Act, the settlement of 1971 continued to be binding until the same was duly terminated after following the procedure provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the employers, the Air India, had not rescinded the said settlement by giving notice, it was binding upon them. By issuing the impugned order, the Management has committed the breach of the settlement, which is an offence under Section 29 of the I.D. Act. The respondent No. 2 was thus not authorised in passing any order altering or changing the flight and duty time limitations and this has been made penal under Section 29 of the I.D. Act. Under these circumstances, the petitioners prayed for a direction against the management of Respondent No. 2 from refraining from giving the effect to the impugned order dated 9th February, 1988.