Karnataka High Court
Capt. Kripa Sindhu vs Air India Limited on 28 November, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.4171/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
CAPT. KRIPA SINDHU
S/O LATE DEEP RATNA JAISWAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT No.B-102
AISSHWARYA EXCELLENCY
1ST FLOOR, OLD MADRAS ROAD
VIJAYAPURA, DOORVANINAGAR
BENGALURU-560016. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.RAVINDRA., ADV.)
AND:
1. AIR INDIA LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
OFFICIAL ADDRESS AT 2ND FLOOR
AIRLINES HOUSE, 113 GURUDWARA
RAKABGUNJ ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001.
2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS)
OFFICER IN CHARGE FOR RESIGNATION
AIR INDIA LTD.,
AIR INDIA RESERVATION
COMPLEX S'JUNG AIRPORT
NEW DELHI-110003.
3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS)
REGIONAL OFFICE, AIR INDIA LTD.,
SERVICE COMPLEX, HAL AIRPORT
BENGALURU-560017.
4. SENIOR MANAGER (PERSONNEL)
REGIONAL OFFICE, AIR INDIA LTD.,
2
SERVICE COMPLEX, HAL AIRPORT
BENGALURU-560017. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SREENATH.V.K., ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH OR
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 13.08.2020; AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned letter bearing No.HPDO1/0-2701 dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure-Q) of the first respondent - Air India Limited, by which the petitioner's request to withdraw the resignation is rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.Ravindra for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Sreenath.V.K., for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Pilot in the first respondent - Air India Limited. On 05.02.2020, the 3 petitioner served notice of resignation on the first respondent. Subsequently by letter dated 18.03.2020, (Annexure-O), the petitioner sought permission to withdraw his resignation and stated that he would come back to continue in the service of first respondent - Air India Limited. The request of the petitioner under Annexure-Q, impugned letter dated 13.08.2020 is rejected and he was relieved from the service of the respondent company from 04.08.2020 and it was informed that he stood relieved from 13.08.2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed before this Court on 17.02.2021.
4. Emergent notice was ordered on 26.02.2021. On appearance, respondent No.1 filed statement of objections and additional statement of objections raising the contention of maintainability of writ petition, in view of the fact that the first respondent - Air India Limited by virtue of resolution dated 27.01.2022 is no more a Government Company and its 100% share has been purchased by Talace Pvt. Ltd. Since the first respondent 4 has become private limited company, it is submitted that no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to maintainability of writ petition places reliance on the order of this Court in W.P.No.21448/2021, dated 06.04.2022 and submits that since the position of Air India Limited owned by Government of India has changed and it has now become Private Limited Company and therefore this Court refused to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the learned counsel also invites attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P.No.1770/2011 and connected matters, disposed of on 20.09.2022, wherein the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court is taken note of and the Division Bench, held that the writ petition against Air India Limited would not be maintainable. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed on 17.02.2021 and as on the date of filing the writ petition, the first respondent - Air India Limited was a Government owned Company and as such writ petition would be maintainable. Further, he refers to the decision of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C).No.4203/2020 and connected matters wherein by order dated 01.06.2021, the Delhi High Court entertained the writ petition and identical impugned orders are set aside. The first respondent - Air India Limited filed appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in L.P.A.No.246/2021 and connected matters and the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 17.12.2021 dismissed the appeal filed by the first respondent - Air India Limited. Thus, he submits that writ petition would be maintainable. He also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KAPILA HINGORANI V/S. STATE OF BIHAR [(2005) 2 SCC 262] to contend that wherever there is infringement of 6 fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, writ petition would be maintainable. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, at this stage, the only point which falls for consideration is as to, Whether the writ petition against the first respondent - Air India Limited would be maintainable?
8. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
This writ petition was filed on 17.02.2021 challenging Annexure-Q, communication dated 13.08.2020 wherein the petitioner's request to withdraw the resignation submitted by him is rejected. As on the date of filing the writ petition, the first respondent - Air India Limited was a Central Government owned company. Subsequently, by resolution dated 7 27.01.2022, the Board of Directors of Air India Limited at its 123rd Meeting, passed the following resolution:
"RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to the execution of the Share Purchase Agreement ("SPA") dated October 25, 2021 executed by and amongst the GOI, Talace Private Limited and the Company for the strategic disinvestment of the Company by way of transfer of management control and sale of 100% of the equity share capital of the Company held by GOI, which will include the Company's shareholding interest of 100% in the Air India Express Limited and 50% in Air India SATS Airport Services Pvt Ltd, the consent of the Board of the Company be and is hereby accorded to take on record that the Company has ceased to be a Government owned Company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 and the Rules made thereunder."
Subsequent to the above said resolution and by operation of law, the first respondent - Air India Limited has become Private Limited Company. Once the first respondent - Air India Limited has become Private 8 Limited Company, no writ would be maintainable against a Private Limited Company.
9. This Court had an occasion to consider the grievance of an employee of Air India Limited in W.P.No.21448/2021, subsequent to privatization and this Court by order dated 06.04.2022, at paragraph (4) held as follows:
"4. From the above, it is clear that the Air India Limited is now a private Company owned by M/s.Talace Pvt. Ltd. The earlier position of Air India Limited which was a fully owned Government of India Company, has changed and it is now a Private Limited Company. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner in the matter of seniority can be redressed only before the competent authority which can deal with the question and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
10. The above order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was taken note of by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in 9 W.P.No.1770/2011, wherein the Division Bench after considering several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded as follows at paragraphs 68 and 74:
"68. With its privatization, AIL has ceased to be an Article 12 authority. There is and can be no doubt that no writ or order or direction can be issued on these writ petitions against AIL for an alleged breach of a Fundamental Right. Conscious of the change in the factual as well as legal position arising out of privatization of AIL, Mr.Singhvi with the experience behind him changed the line of argument and introduced the concept of 'public employment' of the petitioners and contended that since the petitioners were employees of AIL, which at the material time was discharging public functions, the writ petitions ought to be heard particularly when the petitioners are not at fault for the time lapse.
74. The writ petitions, although maintainable on the dates they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable by reason of privatization of AIL which takes it beyond our jurisdiction to issue a writ or 10 order or direction to it. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petitions and the connected applications and chamber summons stand disposed of without granting any relief as claimed therein but with liberty to the petitioners to explore their remedy in accordance with law. No costs."
11. In view of the above decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable against the respondent - Air India Limited.
12. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Delhi High Court by the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench is prior to the privatization of the first respondent - Air India Limited rendered on 01.06.2021 as well as 17.12.2021. Those decisions would have no application to the facts of the present case since subsequent to the said decision, the first respondent - Air India Limited was privatized and it had become Private Limited Company. Therefore, I decline to entertain the writ petition. 11
13. The decision in KAPILA HINGORANI relied on by the petitioner would not assist the case of the petitioner. In KAPILA HINGORANI's case there was already a direction by order dated 09.05.2003 and in pursuance of the said direction, the State of Bihar had deposited Rs.50.00 Crores before the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision had held that the State owned Corporations have constitutional obligation towards payment of salaries to its employees since the petitioners therein were the employees of Public Undertakings. In the light of the earlier direction for payment of salaries and in the matter of receiving salary, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that employees have a human right as also a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which the States are bound to protect.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands rejected.
12
It is open for the petitioner to avail the available remedy under law.
In view of rejection of the writ petition, all the pending I.As stand disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE NC.