Court dismisses pleas by six Air India pilots over termination

Only statutory contracts can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution, said the court.

An ordinary contract entered into by a state-owned entity or an institution or body performing public function cannot be enforced through a judicial order under Article 226 of the constitution that empowers high courts to issue writ to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, the Delhi high court said, dismissing pleas by six pilots of Air India who challenged the termination of their service contracts in the course of the pandemic.

(REUTERS)

Only statutory contracts can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution, said the court.

“A non-statutory contract of service is not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution…Ultimately, the question of maintainability of a writ petition would have to be adjudged on the anvil of whether the contract is statutory or not. Decisions taken by such bodies within the confines of an ordinary contract of service and which has no statutory force or backing, would not be amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the court said in a 30-page judgment.

It also agreed with the submissions of Air India which contended that since it ceased to be a government company by virtue of the exercise of privatization, the writ petition itself would cease to be maintainable.

The court also noted that the terms and conditions of employment of the petitioners are governed by a contract that is not statutory.

The judge also noted that the provisions of Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) do not control or regulate the termination of the contract which was effected by Air India based on its assessment that it would not be in a position to utilize the services of the petitioners in light of the prevailing economic constraints faced by the civil aviation sector.

The petitioners were earlier appointed as permanent employees , as commanders and co-pilots with Air India. After retiring, they were appointed on contractual terms.

The petitioners challenged two orders of April 2, 2020 and August 7, 2020. In the first order, Air India Limited (AIL) , considering the outbreak of Covid-19 and its impact on operations of airlines worldwide, proceeded to place their engagement on contractual terms under temporary suspension.

By the subsequent order of August 7, 2020, AIL apprised the petitioners that in view of the prevailing scenario in the civil aviation sector, a decision was taken to discontinue their contractual engagement.

However, opposing the pleas, AIL through senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar, contended that shares of AIL are held by an independent private entity and thus it can no longer be construed or recognised as being a public body or authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The pilots argued claimed that it was wholly incorrect to term AIL a private entity as it performs and discharges important public function. The counsel had said that AIL performs essential functions and extends aid and assistance to the Union Government itself in times of humanitarian crises and in times of national or international emergencies. The court ruled that while this may be the case, it did not make their contract enforceable under writ.