Are Airline Pilots “Workmen” Under Labour Law Despite High Salaries? Delhi HC Answers

The Delhi High Court has held that airline pilots fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after finding that the functions performed by them are skilled and technical in nature.

In doing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a batch of appeals filed by King Airways, which had challenged labour court orders passed in favour of its pilots. The appeals arose from a judgment of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court that had upheld the pilots’ status as workmen and affirmed their entitlement to remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Single Judge had upheld orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court allowing the pilots’ claims for unpaid salary, incentives for extra flying hours, and related dues. The Court had rejected the airline’s contention that pilots, by virtue of being designated as Pilots in Command or Captains, performed supervisory or managerial functions that would exclude them from the statutory definition of workman.

Before the Division Bench, King Airways argued that pilots, particularly those designated as Pilot in Command, exercise supervisory control over the crew and draw salaries far exceeding the statutory threshold prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. It was submitted that the very role of a Captain places a pilot in a supervisory or managerial capacity, thereby attracting the exclusion contained in Section 2(s)(iv) of the Act.

The airline relied on appointment letters, operational manuals, and Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, contending that pilots supervise crew members during flight operations and therefore fall outside the protective framework of labour law. The airline also assailed the award of back wages, contending that it was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya. According to the appellant, the grant of back wages is not automatic and must be based on evidence showing that the termination was unjustified and that the employee was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. It was argued that the Single Judge had mechanically affirmed the Tribunal’s award of back wages without examining these parameters.

On the other hand, the pilots contended that their predominant and essential function is to fly the aircraft and that any reference to supervision under aviation rules is purely in the context of flight safety, not industrial or administrative control.

They submitted that pilots exercise no real authority over the day-to-day work, discipline, or service conditions of crew members and that statutory definitions must be applied based on the actual duties performed rather than designation or salary. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Bangalore Water Supply, they argued that labour statutes must be interpreted pragmatically and in a welfare-oriented manner.

Agreeing with the Single Judge, the Division Bench categorically held that pilots fall within the definition of “workman” owing to the skilled and technical nature of their duties.

The Court observed, “We have already rendered a finding that the Respondent herein verily falls within the four corners of the definition of a ‘Workman’ in Section 2(s) given the skilled and technical nature of functions he or she performs. Resultantly, there arises no need for recourse to the exceptions enumerated in Section 2(s) and in particular Section 2(s)(iv) thereof, which speaks of a person employed in a supervisory capacity or the stipulation pertaining to the salary of such persons.”

The Bench clarified that once a pilot is found to be a “workman” based on the nature of duties, there is no need to invoke the salary-based or supervisory exclusions under Section 2(s)(iv).

Addressing the airline’s claim that pilots supervise crew members, the Court said there is a distinction between theoretical command and real supervisory authority. It said, "Although, in theory, they may be regarded as being in charge of the aircraft while in flight and referred to as the ‘Captain’, in reality, the pilot’s primary function is confined to flying the aircraft itself.”

The Bench noted that, unlike a ship’s captain, an aircraft pilot does not manage departments or personnel in an industrial sense. It further held, “The members of the crew carry out their functions without any actual supervisory control being exercised by the pilot.”

The Court thus rejected the argument that high salary alone could exclude pilots from the definition of “workman”, holding that salary becomes relevant only if supervisory functions are first established, which was not the case here.

On the issue of back wages, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, noting that the termination of the pilots had been found to be illegal and unjustified and that the burden to prove gainful employment during the relevant period lay squarely on the employer. Since the airline had failed to place any cogent material on record to show that the pilots were gainfully employed elsewhere, the Court found no reason to interfere with the grant of back wages.

In view of the above findings, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the airline, holding that the Single Judge and the Labour Court had correctly concluded that the pilots were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

For Appellant. Amit Rawal, Mr. Pradeep Bakshi, Senior Advocates with Ms. Rishika, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Shohit Chaudhry, Advocate.

Case Title: King Airways Vs Captain Pritam Singh

Bench: Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Judgment date: 11 December 2025