Air India Privatization Won't Bar Challenges To Labour Tribunal Awards Under Article 226: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging awards passed by Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals remain maintainable even after Air India's privatization.
Justice Shail Jain made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by former Air India/Indian Airlines workmen and employee unions challenging awards of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which had granted monetary compensation instead of reinstatement after holding their termination illegal.
The dispute pertained to casual workers engaged by Indian Airlines between 1993 and 1998 in various capacities such as helpers, drivers and other support staff. The CGIT had earlier held that the termination of the workmen violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but awarded compensation ranging between ₹25,000 and ₹55,000 instead of reinstatement.
Before the High Court, Air India raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that after privatization in 2022, the airline is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's ruling in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India (2024) where the Supreme Court held that, post-privatization, Air India does not qualify as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, a writ petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable against it.
Rejecting the objection, the Court distinguished the present case from Madireddy, observing that the employees there had directly invoked writ jurisdiction against Air India without first exhausting remedies under labour laws. In contrast, the present petitions arose after adjudication by the CGIT under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Court observed,
“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. In such cases, the writ is directed against the adjudicatory process and the award itself, not merely the private entity. Therefore, the High Court can entertain a writ petition even where the underlying dispute involves a private employer, provided it emanates from a tribunal's award. ”
The bench further held that accepting Air India's contention would effectively render tribunal awards immune from judicial scrutiny, which could not have been the legislative intent.
Referring to Section 17(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court noted that although the provision bars ordinary civil court challenges and no statutory appeal is provided against such awards, judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 remains available where an award suffers from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.
On merits, the Court upheld the CGIT's finding that the termination of the workmen violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as they had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and were terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation.
However, the Court declined reinstatement, noting that the workers had been engaged as casual employees for limited periods nearly three decades ago.
As such, the Court disposed of the matter by modifying the award rendered by the CGIT.
Appearance: Ms. Aayushi Jain, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rohan Mandal, Ms. Deeksha Arora, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. A.S. Rastogi and Mr. Shiv Kant Arora, Advs. for Respondents
Case title: Sauraj Singh v. M/S Indian Airlines Ltd And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 377/2013