Privatisation Does Not Bar Writ Petitions In Air India Labour Cases: Delhi High Court

The Court clarified that while Air India may no longer qualify as “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, awards passed by labour tribunals are still subject to scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227.

Justice Shail Jain observed that judicial review in such cases is directed not merely against the private employer, but against the adjudicatory process and the industrial tribunal’s award itself. The Court held that denying such scrutiny would effectively make labour tribunal awards immune from challenge.

The Court categorically stated: “Once a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal renders an award, such award is subject to judicial review by the High Court under Articles 226/227.”

The Judgment came while deciding a batch of petitions filed by casual workers and unions challenging awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which had held their termination illegal but granted limited compensation instead of reinstatement.

Air India had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that after privatisation it was no longer amenable to writ jurisdiction. The airline relied on earlier judgments holding that post-disinvestment Air India does not perform public functions.

However, the Delhi High Court distinguished those rulings, noting that the present petitions arose out of industrial adjudication after the workers had already exhausted statutory remedies under labour laws. The Court emphasised that the dispute was not a direct service challenge against a private company but a challenge to the legality of a tribunal award.

In a crucial observation, the Court warned against insulating labour tribunal decisions from judicial oversight. It remarked: “Any construction that renders their awards completely immune from judicial scrutiny would defeat this purpose.”

On merits, the Court upheld the finding that the termination of the workers violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act because they had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and were retrenched without notice or compensation.

The Court was particularly critical of Air India’s justification that the retrenchment was carried out pursuant to earlier High Court directions. Rejecting the defence, the Court observed that the workers were terminated selectively over an extended period rather than through a uniform exercise undertaken immediately after the earlier judgment.

In one of the sharpest remarks in the ruling, the Court said: “The orders of this Court are not a reservoir of convenient justification to be drawn upon selectively and intermittently as the management sees fit.”

Although the Court declined reinstatement because nearly three decades had passed and the workers had only served as casual employees, it held that the compensation awarded by the CGIT was inadequate.

Modifying the tribunal’s award, the High Court substantially enhanced compensation payable to the workers. Employees who worked for one year or more were awarded Rs. 1.25 lakh, those with two years or more of service were granted Rs. 2.5 lakh, while workers completing three years or more became entitled to Rs. 3.75 lakh each.