# INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION v. INDIAN AIRLINES LID. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2007] 8 S.C.R. 655
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-07-30
- **Bench:** H.K. Sema, V.S. Sirpurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/indian-airlines-officers-association-v-indian-airlines-lid-ors-23178
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

B
Service Law:
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14:
c
Service conditions-Scheme of merger of V ayudoot with Indian Airlines
and Air India-Seniority and promotions of employees of Vayudoot in Indian
Airlines vis-a-vis Air India-Discrimination-Held: Merger of Vayudoot and
absorption of its employees in Indian Airlines and Air India were two
completely independent processes commenced and ultimately certain decision D
in connection thereof concerning seniority and promotion have been takenRaising of demands by the employees of Vayudoot absorbed in Indian Airlines
concerning promotion prospects but no such demands raised by the employees
of V ayudoot absorbed in Air India-Besides, employees of V ayudoot absorbed
as fresh appointee in Air India, however, in case of Indian Airlines they wer~
placed in the bottom of each grade/category of posts-Thus, Air India and E
Indian Airlines are not comparable to each other so far as absorption of
employees of V ayudoot in these two organizations is concerned-Merely
because some employees of Indian Airlin~s would be affected adversely in
terms of future chance of promotion, the whole Schefl!e of merger could not
be rejected as discriminatory or arbitrary.
Integration of employees of Vayudoot in Indian Airlines-Necessity
of-Held: It was necessary in order to resolve the grievances of substantial
number of employees of Vayudoot.
Absorption of employees of Vayudoot in Indian Airlines and Air India
without consulting them-Principles of Natural Justice-Violation of-Held:
The Policy of merger formulated in conformity with the principles of law,
functional similarity of the posts in two Organisations avoiding undue
advantage to some and undue hardship to others-Merely because
appellant-Union was not called upon for direct negotiations in the decision
655
F
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 8 S.C.R.
A making while formulating the Policy, it cannot be said that the Policy makers
were not alive to the welfare ·of the employees-There is no arbitrariness in
th~ Policy besides equities between the two Organisations have been properly
balanced-This is not a case where the principles of natural justice could
be brought in-Administrative Law-Principles of Natural Justice.
B
The Government of India took a policy decision to merge Vayudoot with
· •ndian Airlines and Air India. Initially, a separate department was created in
Indian Airlines called 'Short Haul Operations Department' (SHOD) for
absorption of erstwhile Vayudoot employees in terms of certain conditions.
Accordingly, the appointment orders were issued in favour of the Vayudoot
C employees appointing them in SHOD. However, after their absorption in
SHOD, the employees of Vayudoot' started raising demands for better
promotional prospects. It was decided by the Central Government to merge
them in Air India and Indian Airlines. A scheme of merger was formulated
accordingly.
However~ the employees of Vayudoot who opted for their
absorption in Indian Airlines raised various demands concerning their service
D conditions. A meeting was held at the instance of Secretary, Civil Aviation to
resolve these demands. Thereafter, another meeting was held.between the
y
officers of Ministry of Civil Aviation and the representatives of Indian
Airlines. It was decided that unless and until SHOD employees were merged
in Indian Airlines, they would have no legal rights to raise demands, and
E therefore, their merger was agreed as suggested in earlier meeting. It was
also resolved that Indian Airlines should take necessary steps of merger of
SHOD employees in the mainstream of Indian Airlines not only on individual
basis but on the basis of various classes/categories of employees. Accordingly,
the Ministry .advised Indian Airlines to take necessary action as per the
minutes issued by the Ministry. However, the employees of Indian Airlines
· F felt that though in the meeting, the decision taken was that SHOD employees
'r-'
were to be adjusted at the "entry point" but t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 87,094. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
A
v.
INDIAN AIRLINES LID. & ORS.
JULY 30, 2007
[H.K. SEMA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
B
Service Law:
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 14:
c
Service conditions-Scheme of merger of V ayudoot with Indian Airlines
and Air India-Seniority and promotions of employees of Vayudoot in Indian
Airlines vis-a-vis Air India-Discrimination-Held: Merger of Vayudoot and
absorption of its employees in Indian Airlines and Air India were two
completely independent processes commenced and ultimately certain decision D
in connection thereof concerning seniority and promotion have been takenRaising of demands by the employees of Vayudoot absorbed in Indian Airlines
concerning promotion prospects but no such demands raised by the employees
of V ayudoot absorbed in Air India-Besides, employees of V ayudoot absorbed
as fresh appointee in Air India, however, in case of Indian Airlines they wer~
placed in the bottom of each grade/category of posts-Thus, Air India and E
Indian Airlines are not comparable to each other so far as absorption of
employees of V ayudoot in these two organizations is concerned-Merely
because some employees of Indian Airlin~s would be affected adversely in
terms of future chance of promotion, the whole Schefl!e of merger could not
be rejected as discriminatory or arbitrary.
Integration of employees of Vayudoot in Indian Airlines-Necessity
of-Held: It was necessary in order to resolve the grievances of substantial
number of employees of Vayudoot.
Absorption of employees of Vayudoot in Indian Airlines and Air India
without consulting them-Principles of Natural Justice-Violation of-Held:
The Policy of merger formulated in conformity with the principles of law,
functional similarity of the posts in two Organisations avoiding undue
advantage to some and undue hardship to others-Merely because
appellant-Union was not called upon for direct negotiations in the decision
655
F
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 8 S.C.R.
A making while formulating the Policy, it cannot be said that the Policy makers
were not alive to the welfare ·of the employees-There is no arbitrariness in
th~ Policy besides equities between the two Organisations have been properly
balanced-This is not a case where the principles of natural justice could
be brought in-Administrative Law-Principles of Natural Justice.
B
The Government of India took a policy decision to merge Vayudoot with
· •ndian Airlines and Air India. Initially, a separate department was created in
Indian Airlines called 'Short Haul Operations Department' (SHOD) for
absorption of erstwhile Vayudoot employees in terms of certain conditions.
Accordingly, the appointment orders were issued in favour of the Vayudoot
C employees appointing them in SHOD. However, after their absorption in
SHOD, the employees of Vayudoot' started raising demands for better
promotional prospects. It was decided by the Central Government to merge
them in Air India and Indian Airlines. A scheme of merger was formulated
accordingly.
However~ the employees of Vayudoot who opted for their
absorption in Indian Airlines raised various demands concerning their service
D conditions. A meeting was held at the instance of Secretary, Civil Aviation to
resolve these demands. Thereafter, another meeting was held.between the
y
officers of Ministry of Civil Aviation and the representatives of Indian
Airlines. It was decided that unless and until SHOD employees were merged
in Indian Airlines, they would have no legal rights to raise demands, and
E therefore, their merger was agreed as suggested in earlier meeting. It was
also resolved that Indian Airlines should take necessary steps of merger of
SHOD employees in the mainstream of Indian Airlines not only on individual
basis but on the basis of various classes/categories of employees. Accordingly,
the Ministry .advised Indian Airlines to take necessary action as per the
minutes issued by the Ministry. However, the employees of Indian Airlines
· F felt that though in the meeting, the decision taken was that SHOD employees
'r-'
were to be adjusted at the "entry point" but the minutes reflected as if they
were to have the "horizontal entry". Aggrieved by the decision of the Central
Government they had challenged the decision of the Government by filing writ
petitions. Another writ petition was filed by an individual who was working
G as Deputy Manager in the Vayudoot Karamchari Sangh. Th~ writ petitions
came to be allowed by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by quashing
the decisions so taken in the meeting and directing that the whole exercise
\
should have been taken afresh after considering all the aspects. The Single
}- .
Judge did not specifically approve the "Horizontal entry" of the employees of
Vayudoot in the Indian Airlines and reiterating that such an entry would mean
H injustice to the employees of the Indian Airlines who had spent number of
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD.
657
years for getting the promotion in terms of extant rules, on the other hand, A
employees ofVayudoot had got the promotions in the most arbitrary manner.
The judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court was appealed against by
the Indian Airlines and others before the Divisio!l Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals. Hence the present
appeals.
Appellants contended that there was no formal merger between the Indian
Airlines and the Vayudoot. Consequently, the decision taken in the meeting
dated 16.3.2000 followed by the notification dated 5.2.2001 would be non-est
in law and would be liable to be quashed; that the impugned notification as
B
also the minutes of the meeting dated 16.03.2000 clearly suggest that at the C
time of absorption the Vayudoot employees, who were serving in SHOD, would
be placed at the bottom of the respective grade/pay-scale as on 10.3.1998 with
protection of their pay and past services; that the main point of conflict was
as to whether an employee or more particularly, the officer serving in Vayudoot
should be placed in the same grade with the same nomenclature or should be
placed at the entry level of the cadre; that in case of Air India, the employees D
of SHOD were not given the horizontal entry but were put at the bottom at the
entry level of their own cadre; that there was no equation between the posts
in Indian Airlines and Vayudoot; that horizontal entry of SHOD officers could
not be allowed without equation of posts, particularly taking into consideration
the qualification for the post, nature of duties and functions and length of
service required for promotion to the next grade as also scales of pay, etc.;
and that the minutes of the meeting dated 16.3.2000 as also the notification
dated 5.2.2001 were liable to be quashed on the ground of gross violation of
principles of natural justice since the appellant Association was not associated
in the discussions at the time of the policy decision taken nor were they made
party in the subsequent discussions/meetings, and as such they were denied
any say in the process of decision making affecting the rights of its members.
Respondents submitted that merely because a particular policy was
taken in case of Air India would not by itself create any obligation that the
same kind of policy should be taken in case of Indian Airlines also; that it
E
F
was a case of merger or absorption of ex-Vayudoot employee with Air India G
like in case of Indian Airlines; that those employees who were inducted in
Air India way back in 1994, were treated as the fresh appointees, they were
bound to be placed at the entry level in Air India; that issues like horizontal
entry of SHOD Officers and equation of the posts in Indian Airlines and
Vayudoot were discussed threadbare in the various meetings held earlier and
H
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 8 S.C.R.
A it is only thereafter that the decision of fusion or as the case may be merger
B
was taken by fixing a particular cut off date; and that the basic structure o_f
cloi
the service in Vayudoot and Indian Airlines was comparable if not entirely
identical with each other.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The decision to merge Vayudoot with Indian Airlines was
taken as back as 25.5.1993 and it was a policy decision of the Central
Government It may be that till 16.3.2000 or the consequent notification dated
5.2.2001 there was no formal merger between the two, however, that by itself
will not invalidate the decisions taken on 16.3.2000 or 5.2.2001. The policy
C decision taken was not only pursued but definite steps were taken in pursuance
thereof and for that purpose Short Haul Operation Department (SHOD) was
created as part imd parcel of the Indian Airlines. After the decision was taken
to merge, the facts indicate that the existence ofVayudoot was a mere formality.
True it is that there was a separate procedure and that other legal formalities
D were not yet over, however, that by itself would not have the effect of wiping
out the decision taken earlier. (Para 23) (673-A, B, q
E
2.1. The entire process of merger of ex-Vayudoot employees and their
abs6rption in Indian Airlines was a completely independent process~
(Para 26] (675-F)
2.2. Vayudoot employees who were placed in SHOD were to keep their
independent identity. However, SHOD employees were ~ot satisfied with this.
and started demanding some better chances by getting iilto the mainstream
of Indian Airlines and this was not unnatural because after the merger
decision they had lost their independent status as Vayudoot employees, they
F were to be treated as Indian Airlines employees but belonging to SHOD, thereby
though they were part of the Indian Airlines family, they were to be treated
differently to their chagrin. It is only because of this that a completely new
and independent process was commenced holding several meetings, talks and
ultimately a scheme was evolved for absorbing SHOD employees into the
mainstream of Indian Airlines. All this was conspicuously absent in case of
G ·Air India. Indeed no evidence has been brought before this Court that such
kind of exercise was done in case of Air India also. Hence, the contention
that in case of Air India the Vayudoot employees went as the fre5h appointees
and that was the basis of merger or as the case may be, absorption of the
).-:
A
Vayudoot employees into Air India is accepted.
H
(Para 26) (675-G; 676-A, B, CJ
'
..x
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD.
659
2.3. The case of Air lndiP and Indian Airlines are not comparable to A
each other. Whereas about 300 employees went to Air India as the fresh
appointees, more than thrice that number had to be adjusted in Indian Airlines.
The number was substantial which lost their identity as the Vayudoot
employees and as a result of the demand raised by them-and after lot of
discussions in Civil Aviation Ministry on one hand and the Indian Air Lines
authorities on the other a scheme was formulated. There was nothing wrong B
done in adopting two different methodologies in case of Air India and Indian
Airlines. (Para 2711676-D, E, F)
2.4. Merely because some of the employees of Indian Airlines would
suffer in terms of seniority and ultimately in terms of their further chances C
of promotion, the whole scheme can not be rejected as discriminatory or
arbitrary. f Para 28) 1676-F)
2.5. If the erstwhile Vayudoot employees are being fixed horizontally
as the junior most employees of that post, there would be no question of
injustice to Indian Airlines employees. [Para 2911679-E)
D
y
Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General
Subordinate Services Association & Ors. v. State o/Tamil Nadu, (1980) 3 SCC
97, relied on.
2.6. There is clear evidence available that the policy of absorption was E
chalked out in conformity with the principles of law, functional similarity in
the posts of two organisations and was a well thought out policy avoiding
undue advantage to some and undue hardship to others.
f Para 30) (679-B, q
3.1. Fixing the cut-off date on 10.03.1998 when broadly the principles F
of merger were arrived at for the first time after thorough discussions, would
not be an arbitrary exercise. There was nothing wrong in fixing 10.03.1998
as the cut-off date. It balanced the equities between the erstwhile Vayudoot
employees and the present Indian Airlines employees, inasmuch as though
the merger was five years old by then, the Indian Airlines employees got five G
years advantage whereas the Vayudoot employees had to sacrifice those five
years in lieu of the better deal of the service they got because of the merger.
(Para 311 (679-D, E)
3.1. lt was completely optional for the employees of SHOD to join the
mainstream of Indian Airlines which was one of their major demands. They H
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 8 S.C.R.
A were all the time clamouring that by remaining in SHOD they would have
bleak future, whereas if they are allowed to join the mainstream of Indian
Airlines, they would have better chances of promotions. After the
deliberations in various meetings it was decided that they would have an option
to join the Indian Airlines subject to certain conditions and one of the condition
was that the cut off date was to be 10.3.1998. It was, therefore, open for SHOD
B employees not to opt for joining the mainstream of Indian Airlines if they felt
that they would be losing five years of service in joining Indian Airlines.
However, the statistics show that practically all the SHOD employees chose
to join Indian Airlines. Therefore, they cannot now turn back and raise a
plea that injustice is caused to them by fixing 10.3.98 as a cut off date instead
C of 25.5.1993 or as the case may be, 10th April, 1994.
f Para 321 (679-F, G; 680-A, Bl
H.K. Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and Anr., ( 19871 Supp. SCC 553 and
Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (19921 2 SCC
119, held inapplicable.
D
4.1. True it is that the Appellant Union was not called for direct
negotiations in decision making but it cannot be said that the policy makers
were not alive to the welfare of the Indian Airlines employees and secondly
no right accrue in favour of the appellant Association so that their non
participation in policy making would result in wiping out the policy decision
E altogether. This is not the case where the principles of natural justice could
be brought in so as to hold that ifthe appellant Association was not made a
party to the discussions for policy making, such decision making the policy
would be hit by the principles of naturaljustice. (Para 35( (683-8, Cl
4.2. It is seen that the authorities were alive to the service conditions of
F the Indian Airlines employees and had their future in mind also, the authorities
were not bound to negotiate with the Appellant Association before formulating
the policy. Such policy which is framed without active negotiations with the
Appellant-Union would not for that reason alone be rendered non est and ~ould
suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. After-all in ultimate policy which has
been culled out, no arbitrariness is seen. On the other hand, the equities in
G between the Indian Airlines employees and SHOD employees have been
properly balanced and counter-balanced. (Para 351 1683-E, Fl
H
Ba/co Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (20021 2 SCC 333,
relied on.
5.1. There was no specific evidence put befor:e this Court that the
·'
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD.
661
-~
managerial cadres in Indian Airlines had very high qualifications, A
responsibilities, duties and salaries and such high responsibilities, duties and
salaries were not applicable to the employees ofVayudoot However, attention
was repeatedly drawn to the counter affidav:t filed by Indian Airlines before
the Single Judge of the High Court where it was said that the two cadres
were not comparable; However, one must bear in mind that at that time the
only question was as to whether the erstwhile Vayudoot employees could be B
allowed to compete for the higher posts in Indian Airlines when there was a
complete compartmentalization between the employees ofVayudoot and Indian
___,_
Airlines in the sense that the Indian Airlines employees could not be
transferred to Vayudoot and vice-a-versa and further the SHOD employees
were to be maintained as a separate and distinct Department from the Indian c
Airlines. The defence raised in that case, at that time, could not be said to be
a be all and end all of the matter so as to hold that the two cadres even at the
later point of time were wholly incomparable so that they could not be integrated
at all. (Para 371 (685-G; 686-A, B, Cl
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Chandra/cant Anant Kulkarni & ·Ors., D
-._,..;-
(1981} 4 SCC 130; Union of India & Ors. v. S.L. Dutta and Anr., (1991} 1
SCC 505 and S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India & Ors., (1998} 4 SCC
598, held inapplicable.
5.2. In the matter of integration or as the case may be, fusion of the
employees was a matter of policy which had become necessary in order to E
contain the grievances of substantial number of Vayudoot employees. Any
su~h policy decision, unless the said decision was arbitrary, unreasonable or
capricious, could not have been challenged by the employees.
[Para 37) [686-C, DJ
. ....,
Union of India& Ors. v. S.l. DuttaandAnr., (1991} l SCC 505, referred F
to.
5.3. Even the managerial duties in the Indian Airlines as well as Vayudoot
would involve the technical questions as to the nature of duties, training
required and desirable qualifications. Again, the lengthy deliberations in G
various meetings tcnnrive at a proper decision taken by the responsible
persons like Senior officers of Ministry of Civil Aviation, Senior Officers
.. --(
including the CMD of Indian Airlines as also the Ex-Director of SHOD and
the Director (HRD) of Indian Airlines, cannot be ignored. In the wake of
these personalities spending their valuable time to frame the policy regarding
the fusion, Court would be slow to interfere with such policy. Hence, the H
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 8 S.C.R.
A Division Bench of the High Court was right in upsetting the judgment of the
Single Judge of the High Court [Paras 37 and 401 (687-A, B, c; 688-D)
B
c
S.P. Shivprasad Pipalv. Union of India& Ors., (1998) 4 SCC 598 and
Union of India & Anr. v. International Trading Co. & Anr., (20031 S SCC
437, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1269 of2007.
From the Judgment & Ord.er 08.02.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 648 & 649 of2004.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 1270-1272 of2007.
P.P. Rao and L.Nageswara Rao, Naresh Kaushik, Lalita Kaushik, Vikas
Mahajan, Sidharth Gupta ,Bhasker Y. Kulkarni, Raja Chatterjee, G.S. Chatterjee,
D Anita Shenoy, Nitin Ramesh, Lalit Bhasin, Ramesh Singh, Nina Gupta,
Akanksha, Neha. Sharma and Bina Gupta, for the appearing parties
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This Judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos.
E 1269, 1270, 1271and1272 of2007. Civil Appeal No. 1269 of2007 is preferred
by Officers' Association of Indian Airlines; the representative body of the
Indian Airlines employees. The Civil Appeal No. 1270 of2007 is preferred by
Indian Airlines Cabi:t Crew Association while Civil Appeal No. 1271 of2007
is preferred by Vayudoot Karamchari Sangh and Civil Appeal No. 1272 of2007
by Indian Airlines Officers' Welfare Forum respectively. All these appeals
F challenge a common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court whereby the Division Bench has set aside the common judgment
passed by the Ld. Single Judge of that Court which had allowed the four Writ
petitions filed by the_ Officers' Association of the lndian Airlines and the
emplqyees of the Vayudoot Limited.
G
H
2. The learned Single Judge in his judgment had dealt with four writ
petitions filed and had granted the relief in the following terms :
"Rule is made absolute. Decision of the respondents to offer merger
. to SHOD employees by placing them at the bottom of the seniority
\
.f
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 663
list of the post held by them after the existing employees of Indian A
Airlines is quashed.
Notification dated 05.02.2001 is quashed.
Notification dated 05.02.2001 requiring SHOD employees to exercise
option in terms of the first notification dated 05.02.2001 is also quashed.
Directions are issued to Indian Airlines and the Union of India to reframe the policy of cadre merger by assessing and determining the
equation of posts by taking into consideration the four guiding factors B
laid down by the Supi'eme Court in Chander/cant Anant Kulkarni 's
case and in light of the observations made by me in the present
decision."
3 . .This direction was upset by the impugned judgment of the Division
Bench whereby the Division . Bench has set aside the whole judgment and C
allowed. LPA nos. 646 to 649 of 2004, .all writ appeals were filed by Indian
Airlines Corporation. The Division Bench by the same judgment also dismissed
. one LPA No. 382of1999 filed by the Vayudoot employees.
FACTS:
*Indian Airlines Ltd. and Air India came to be established under the
Air Corporations Act, 1953.
*Vayudoot Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 1982.
D
*Vayudoot was converted into a Public Ltd. Company in 1983 and its E
shares were held by Indian Airlines and Air India jointly.
*The Government of India took a decision on 25th May, 1993 to merge
Vayudoot with Indian Airlines. Some salient features of that decision
were:
F
(i) Vayudoot should be merged with Indian Airlines instead of
retaining the present form of joint ownership by Indian Airlines
and Air India.
(ii) The dues owed by Vayudoot to creditors in the public sector
on the date of take-over by Indian Airlines would remain frozen G
for five years. There will thus be a moratorium for five years
on repayment and servicing of the dues; thereafter the liabilities
will be discharged by Indian Airlines in I 0 annual instalments.
(iii) Equity shares of Vayudoot Limited held by Air India will be
transferred in favour of Indian Airlines on a token consideration.
H
664
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 8 S.C.R.
(iv) Vayudoot will be retained as a clearly identifiable separate
Division of Indian Airlines.
4. Keeping with these principles, there came a circular dated 25.05.1994
whereby a separate department was created in Indian Airlines called Short
Haul Operations Department (hereinafter called 'SHOD' in short) for absorption
B of erstwhile Vayudoot ,employees. The features of the absorption are as
follows:
(1)
By this circular, the employees so absorbed in SHOD were given
the Indian Airlines pay scales and other benefits enjoyed by the
Indian Airlines employees.
C
(2)
There were no inter-departmental transfer in between SHOD
D
E
F
employees and Indian Airlines.
(3)
The Indian Airlines Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as
service conditions were made applicable to the employees of
SHOD.
(4)
On absorption of employees of Vayudoot in SHOD, the basic
pay drawn by the employees was to be at appropriate pay scales
as comparable to scales of pay of Indian Airlines.
(5)
For the employees of SHOD who th.en possessed a particular
designation but did not have requisite length of service for such
posts as per Indian Airlines Rules firstly their basic pay was
protected and secondly those persons were to be given
designation commensurate with the employee's length of service
· and that designation was to remain till the employee put in the
length of service required in accordance with the rules of Indian
Airlines.
5. Any problem arising after the absorption of Vayudoot employees ·
into SHOD was to be referred to a Committee constituted for that purpose.
Accordingly, the appointment orders were issued in favour of the erstwhile
Vayudoot employees appointing them in SHOD on and around 29.l l.1994. In
G these appointment letters, some conditions were mentioned in which condition
nos. 4 and 9 were as under :
H
"Condition No. 4: Your seniority will be maintained separately in the
Short Haul Operations Department (SHOD) oflndian Airlines Limited
and the same will be determined as per existing rules.
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 665
Condition No.9: If the offer of appointment on the above terms and A
conditions is acceptable to you, please return to us the attached
duplicate copy of this letter, duly signed, in token of your acceptance
of this offer latest by 30th November, 1994. Please send your joining
Report in token of your having reported for duty in SHOD department
on or after 01.12.1994 through your regional head/ Departmental heads." B
6. A circular was issued on 17.12.1994 on the functioning of 'SHOD'.
However, after their absorption in SHOD, the erstwh.ile employees ofVayudoot
._.,
started making demands. A meeting dated 10th March, 1998, therefore, was
convened by the Secretary, Civil Aviation Department to discuss the issues.
In that meeting, those demands were discussed and considered. The minutes C
of that meeting firstly mentioned the background wherein it was noted that
out of the total 1334 employees of the Vayudoot, 311 employees were absorbed
in Air India while remaining 1023 were absorbed in Indian Airlines. The
minutes firstly mentioned the creation of SHOD and it was further mentioned
in the minutes :
"In order to absorb such a large number of employees, the Indian
Airlines created a Short Haul Operations Department (SHOD) which
consisted of Vayudoot employees in their grouped order of seniority
D
as per their length of service with designation as were applicable in
Indian Airlines. This took care of the opposition from the Indian
Airlines' Unions and absorption of Vayudoot employees on the one E
hand and met with the direction of the Government on the other.
However, slowly over a period of time SHOD employees started
_representing on various counts such as the lack of gainful utilization
of their services, maintenance of separate seniority list of employees
of SHOD from that of the Indian Airlines employees, no avenues for F
career progression, etc. The various cadres such as the pilots, the
engineers, the technicians, the general category staff and officers
repeatedly represented and held discussion with the management of
the Indian Airlines."
The minutes further mentioned that there were a number of talks held on the G
demands. Discussions were held at length and views of said employees as
well as the Indian Airlines employees were presented.
7. The dec~'.iions were taken in respect of pilots, aircraft engineers and
technicians with which we are not concerned in these appeals. Shortl stated,
all the employees of the aforementioned three categories of pilot, aircraft H
666
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS
(2007) 8 S.C.R.
A engineers and technicians were to be absorbed at the bottom of the seniority
lists of tJie posts on which they were to be absorbed. As regards the general
category' staff, it was decided as under :
B
c
b
"General Category Staff: It was decided that the general category
staff of SHOD will be placed at the bottom of each grade in respective
departments as on 1.~h March, · 1998.
General Category Officers: It was decided to discuss the issue of the
general category officers again since some reservations were expressed
during the meeting with regard to induction .of SHOD officers into the
respective grades:
Seniority: It w.as decide~ that.SHOD.employees should be reckoned
in respective seniorities for the general category staff in respective
grades of each department from I 0th March, 1998. Future promotions
should consider such employees as per the revised· seniority of the
Indian Airlines."
~
.
lnter-se seniority of SHOD employees will be maintained while placing
y
them in different grades.
8.'A notification was published earlier to that on 2.2.1998 which was.
issued by the General Manager (Personnel) whereby only few Deputy
E Managers (Commercial) of Northern Region of Indian Airlines were to appear
for personal interview for the post of Manager (Commercial) thereby excluding
some of the Deputy Managers (Commercial) working in SHOD. This was
challenged by a Writ Petition No. 723 oft 998 and also by another writ petition
no. 931 of I 998 which writ petitions were ~ventually dismissed by Delhi High
F Court (Ramamoorthy, J.) on 12.07.1999, the LPA No.388 ofl999 against which
was also disposed· of by the imp~gned judgment.
9. In writ petition no. 723 of 1998, the present 'appellant'.' Indian Airlines
Officers Association was allowed ,to. be impleaded. As has already been
stated, the said writ petitions were dis1t1issed., Howe~er, in the present appeal, .
G the appellants herein seek to rely substantially on die counter affidavit filed
by the Indian Airlines.
H
10. It seems thereafter also the question of the demands of the 'SHOD'
officers had remained unanswered . and undecided and therefore a meeting
was held at the instance of Secretary, Civil Aviation on 16.03.2000.
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 667
.l.-
11. As has been seen, till then there was no merger. Paras 2 and 3 of A
the minutes of this meeting are worth noting :
"2. Secretary, Civil Aviation expressed serious concern over the delay
in deciding the merger of SHOD employees in the mainstream of
Indian Airlines although the Government had approved the merger of
Vayudoot into Indian Airlines on 25.05.1993. This is ;ilso resulting in B
avoidable criticism in the parliament and having a demoralizing effect
"'
on the employees of ·Vayudoot without proper career progression.
Secretary, Civil Aviation, therefore, directed Indian Airlines to take
immediate necessary action to resolve the issues once for all. Chairman,
Managing Director, Indian Airlines Limited also assured that the action c
will be ensured in a time- bound manner.
3. It was observed that a common type of offer had been made to all
categories at the time of joining SHOD on 01.12.1994, which provided
for their absorption in Indian Airlines as a separate entity under
SHOD, in which their inter-se seniority ofVayudoot would be carried D
y
over and provided time-bound promotion as per their career
progression. These employees would, therefore, have no other legal
claim if SHOD is not merged with Indian Airlines. It was accordingly
decided that :
(a)
The employees of SHOD be offered to merge with mainstream of E
Indian Airlines on voluntary basis in terms of the scales defined
by the Indian Airlines taking all factors into consideration:-
(b) Those opting against the merger should be allowed to r~main in
SHOD, and the time-bound promotion as per their career
progression under SHOD be released immediately by the Indian F
Airlines management.
(c)
The date of merger of SHOD employees in the mainstream of
Indian Airlines be uniformally kept as l 0.03.1998."
After detailed discussions, the category-wise decisions were taken in
the meeting within. the framework indicated in para 3 above.
G
i
12. In the mir utes of the meeting dated 16.03.2000, we are not concerned
in respect of the Pilots, Executive Pilots and Aircraft Engineers whose
conditions of merger were decided in the meeting but we are concerned with
the general category of staff :
H
A
B
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 8 S.C.R.
"General Category Staff : It was decided that the general category
officers may be merged on voluntary basis with Indian Airlines as on
10.03.1998 in their respective grades and cadres with protection of
their pay and past services. Those having objections against the
merger may be retained in SHOD and offered time- bound promotion
as per their career progression."
13. It will be seen from the Minutes, this meeting was attended by the
following participants :
Ministry o/Civil Aviation :
C
S.No. Name & Designation
I.
Shri Ravindra Gupta, Secretary (CA) in Chair
2.
Shri Anurag Goel, JS(G), MCA
3.
Shri R.S. Meena, Dy. Secy, MCA
D
Indian Airlines
4.
Shri Anil Baijal, CMD, JAL
5.
Shri R.N. Saxena, Ex. Director, SHOD, JAL
E
6.
Shri Shekhar Ghore, Director (HRD), JAL
14. Another meeting was held on 6th May, 2000 between the officers
of Ministry of Civil Aviation and the representatives of Indian Airlines. The
Minutes of this meeting suggest that it was noted that unless and until SHOD
employees were merged in Indian Airlines, they would have no legal rights
F and therefore, their merger was done as suggested in meeting dated I 0.03.1998.
G
The Minutes further declared that Indian Airlines had taken various measures
for merger of SHOD employees to the mainstream of Indian Airlines not on
the individual basis but on the basis of various class/category of employees.
Minutes do refer to the decisions taken in the meeting dated 16.03.2000 which
are as under :
"l. Whenever the principle of merger already enunciated by Ministry
has been accepted by a category of employees and the merger
process had already commenced, the same will continue.
2
Wherever the merger process has not commenced, the employees
H
of SHOD will be offered merger with the mainstream of Indian
;
/
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 669
~
Airlines only on voluntary basis on the tenns enumerated below. · A
~
3.
Those opting against such absorption will continue to be in
SHOD and their career progression will be separately decided:
The date of merger will be kept as 10th March, 1998 as has been
agreed earlier."
15. The Minutes also reiterate the decisions taken in case of general
category employees and general category officers, again in paragraph 4 & 5
which are as under :
B
"4. General Category Employees: Management representative informed
that merged seniority has a_lready been displayed and objections C
raised have been replied to. In most of the cases, the final seniority
has already been displayed. It was decided by the Ministry that
general category employees will be given opportunity to opt for such
merger with the main stream of India Airlines as on 10th March, 1998
at the bottom of the seniority in their respective grades. Those who
do not agree for this dispensation shall continue to be retained in D
SHOD and their career progression will be separately decided.
5. General Category Officers: It was decided that the general category
officers will be merged on voluntary basis as on 10th March, 1998 and
they will take their seniority at the bottom of the entry point of
officers i.e. at the category of Asstt. Managers in their respective E
Departments with protection of basic pay. Those having objections
against such a merger shall be retained in SHOD and their career
progression will be separately detennined."
16. It seems that after this meeting of 16.03.2000, there was lot of
correspondence in between the Indian Airlines and the Ministry of Civil F
Aviation. On 8th May, 2000, Chairman and Managing Director,_ IAL wrote
letter No. HRD/00//236 wherein he referred to his earlier letter dated 6.4.2000
bearing No. Av.18050/3/96-ACIA-Vol.ll and suggested that the Minutes of the
meeting dated 16.03 .2000 did not reflect the exact position of the decisions
taken in the meeting. He, therefore, sent a proposed draft of the Minutes for G
the approval of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. This letter was answered by
the Civil Aviation Ministry on 19.05.2000 bearing No. AV.18050/3/96-ACIA
wherein the Ministry advised Indian Airlines to take necessary action as per
decision contained in the minutes issued by the Ministry vide letter dated
06.04.2000. A compliance report was also sought for.
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 8 S.C.R.
A
17. Another letter was written by Indian Airlines bearing no. CMD/00/
226 dated 06.06.2000 wherein it was again reiterated that the Minutes in the
letter dated 06.04.2000 regarding the meeting dated 16.03.2000 did not reflect
exactly the decision taken in the meeting. It was further reiterated in the letter
that contrary to the decision taken, the minutes reflected as if the decision
was for horizontal entry in their respective grades which was not factual
B recording of the decision and such decisions were· likely to be strongly
resisted by t.he Unions/Associations of the Indian Airlines, other than possibly
the ACEU. In this letter, particularly, the stand of the Indian Airlines was that
in the meeting dated 16.03.2000, the option given to the SHOD employees was
to join Indian Airlines at the entry point at the bottom of the seniority or
C alternatively continue to remain in SHOD. In short, the difficulty felt by the
Indian Airlines was that -though in the meeting dated 16.03.2000, the decision
taken was that SHOD employees were to be adjusted at the "entry point" but
the minutes reflected as if they were to have the "horizontal entry". This letter
again reiterates and refers to the letter dated 08.05.2000 for the correction of
D the minutes. This letter was however replied to by the Civil Aviation Department
by its letter dated 17.02.2000 wherein the Civil Aviation department took a
very clear stand that there was no need to modify the minutes of the meeting
dated 16.03.2000 taken by the then Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation,
meaning thereby that the entry of SHOD employees would be in the horizontal
level and not at the entry point of the cadre, e.g. if a Deputy Manager of
E SHOD was to be merged with Indian Airlines, he would be· merged as a
Deputy Manager at the. bottom of the seniority list of the Deputy Managers
and not as an Assistant Manager which is the entry point of the managerial
cadre. In pursuance of this, ultimately on 05.02.200 I, came the last decision
which was as under :
F
G
H
"Consequent to the decision taken· by the Ministry of Civil Aviation
to merge, the seniority of General Category officers of SHOD in the
mainstream of India Airlines Ltd. on voluntary basis, those officers of
SHOD in the aforesaid categories who are desirous of merger of their
seniority as on 10.03.1998 will be placed at the bottom of the respective
grade/pay scales as on 10.03.1998 with protection of their pay and
past services.
In pursuance to the above; ~ou are advised to exercise your option
for merger of your 3eniority with Indian Airlines Ltd. in the prescribed
fonnat to be submitted to the office of general managers (personnel)of
the respective Region/HQrs. through proper channel within 30 days
~
' -
··<.
INDIAN AIRLINES OFFICERS' ASSO. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.] 671
of this notification.
Employees in respect of whom such an option is not received within
the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that he/she has opted to
remain in SHOD. Such employees shall forfeit all claims for merger
with mainstream. They will be retained in SHOD and offered time
A
bound promotions as per their career progression."
B
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is this ietter which was challenged by four different writ petitions
mainly by the representatives of the Indian Airlines employees Association,
officers' Association, Indian Ai.dines Cabin crew Association. One writ petition C
was filed by an individual Shri U.K. Bhowmik, who was working as Deputy
Manager and lastly by the Vayudoot Karamchari Sangh. The only reason why
Vayudoot Karamchari Sangh challenged this letter was that they objected to
the implementation w.e.f. 10.03.1998. They wanted the implementation from the
date of merger, i.e., right from the year 1994. Their contention was that their
four years have been lost because of the impugned order which was to apply D
w.e.f. 10.03.1998. As stated earlier, these four writ petitions came to be allowed
by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court Hon. Nandrajyog, J. who
quashed these decisions and directed that the whole exercise should be taken
afresh after considering all the aspects.