HC orders SpiceJet to rehire employees retrenched after Dec 2021
The order was passed while hearing a petition by SpiceJet challenging the January 10, 2022, order by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Mumbai (CGIT-2) directing the airline to renew the service contracts of the employees
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) on May 3, directed SpiceJet to renew the service contracts of several of its employees which had expired on December 31, 2021.
The order was passed while hearing a petition by SpiceJet challenging the January 10, 2022, order by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-2, Mumbai (CGIT-2) directing the airline to renew the service contracts of the employees. The tribunal had held that the 463 employees were not guilty of any misconduct and therefore their contracts should be renewed.
SpiceJet had approached HC claiming that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, their daily flights had come down from 144 to 44 and there was no work for the employees hence it could not renew the contracts.
The single-judge bench of justice NJ Jamadar, which was hearing the petition of the chairman and managing director of SpiceJet Ltd., and another represented by advocates Kiran Bapat, Mahesh Shukla and Niraj Prajapati, was informed that the members of the India Spice Jet Staff and Employees Association had not been retrenched as per the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA).
As their contracts had expired on December 31, 2021, the company had exercised its choice of not renewing their contracts. The airline’s advocates submitted that the members were employed on Fixed Term Contract basis, and it was not a case of termination of their services.
However, senior advocate Sanjay Singhvi for the employee’s union argued that the Tribunal had held that as there were no allegations of misconduct as contemplated under the IDA against any of the 463 members, and hence, the company should provide employment to them as an interim arrangement. Thereafter the company renewed the contract of 60 employees only.
After hearing the submissions, the bench noted in its order “There is material on record to indicate that the employees were working for a number of years. Prima facie the claim of the petitioners (SpiceJet) that the employees were covered by exclusion Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act, 1947 does not seem sustainable. The termination of their employment while the reference awaited adjudication before the Tribunal was clearly to the prejudice of the employees.
The airline claimed that 120 employees had resigned and only 371 employees were to be reinstated. The bench said that the remaining employees, who had not yet resigned, shall inform the airline either individually or through the Union that they are willing to work with SpiceJet on or before May 31, 2023.