Delhi High Court: In a case wherein a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek an issuance of direction from the respondents to take necessary action to enforce the Civil Aviation Requirement (‘CAR’), Section 7- Flight Crew Standards Training and Licensing Series X, Part II, Issue III dated 16-08-2017, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., opined that the interim orders dated 25-07-2018 and 11-10-2019 were clear and unequivocal inasmuch as the said orders were conditional upon the pilots and Airlines duly complying with the terms of the contract and in case of non-compliance, the CAR, 2017 became operative; and Respondent 1, Directorate General of Civil Aviation was at liberty to act in accordance with the said CAR, 2017 and under the extant law against the party in breach. Further, there was no absolute restraint against the respondents from taking action against the pilots violating contract or CAR, 2017. Further, the Court held that a direction to Respondent 1 and Respondent 2, Union of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation to decide the representation of petitioners against (future infractions) by the defaulting pilots could not be issued at an interim stage without first deciding the issue of jurisdiction of Respondents 1 and 2.
Background
Petitioner 1, SNV Aviation (P) Ltd. operated an airline under the brand name of ‘Akasa Air’ and the present petition was filed asserting that forty-three pilots employed with the petitioners had resigned from their respective positions, without complying with the minimum contractual notice period (‘defaulting pilots’) as per their respective employment agreement entered with the petitioners and as mandated under CAR, 2017. The petitioners submitted that Respondent 1 was responsible for the regulatory functions in respect of matters specified in the Aircraft Act, 1934 (‘Act’) or Rules made thereunder, including in respect of pilots and Air Transport Undertakings, such as Petitioner 1.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that neither the respondents nor Federation of Indian Pilots (‘FIP’) and Indian Pilots Guild (‘IPG’) had disputed the petitioners’ submission that its pilots had failed to serve their respective minimum contractual notice period of six months. The Court further noted that the petitioners stated that they were not seeking any action the pilots, who had resigned, from Respondent 1 and were only seeking clarification of the interim orders dated 25-07-2018 and 11-10-2019 and a direction to Respondent 1, to take appropriate action as per extant law for possible future infractions by existing pilots of the petitioners.
In regard to the issue of clarification of the interim orders dated 25-07-2018 and 11-10-2019, this Court opined that “the orders were clear and unequivocal inasmuch as the said orders were conditional upon the pilots and Airlines duly complying with the terms of the contract and in case of non-compliance, the CAR, 2017 became operative; and Respondent 1 was at liberty to act in accordance with the said CAR, 2017 and under the extant law against the party in breach. Further, there was no absolute restraint against the respondents from taking action as contended by Respondent 1 and Respondent 2, and thus, to this extent, this Court agreed with the petitioners’ submissions and rejected the submissions of the respondents, IPG and FIP”.
The Court stated that the issue of jurisdiction would have to be decided finally before issuing a direction to Respondents 1 and 2, to consider and inquire upon a complaint received from the petitioner. Thus, the Court held that a direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to decide the representation of petitioners against (future infractions) by the defaulting pilots could not be issued at an interim stage without first deciding the issue of jurisdiction of Respondents 1 and 2.
The Court further held that if during the pendency of this petition in case a pilot acts in breach of the minimum contractual notice period as specified under his/her employment agreement, then such an action would be at pilot’s own risk and would remain subject to the outcome of the present petition.
The matter would next be listed on 13-10-2023.
[SNV Aviation (P) Ltd. v. Directorate General of Civil Aviation, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6131, Order dated 26-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Ashish Bhan, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms. Lisa Mishra, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Kohli, Senior Advocate; Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Avshreya Rudy, Ms. Nippun Sharma, Ms. Awantika Manohar, Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Ms. Neetika Bajaj, Mr. Siddharth Puri, Advocates; Mr. Amit Teotia, Dy. Director; Mr. Amit Gupta, Director
Buy Constitution of India HERE
