Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(C) No.22189 of 2005) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4768 OF 2006 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 6997 of 2006) Prabha D. Kanan Appellant Versus Indian Airlines Ltd. & Anr. Respondent S.B. SINHA, J.

Leave granted in S.L.Ps.

Constitutionality and/ or validity of Regulation 13 of the Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations (for short "the Regulations") is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2030 of 2003.

Indian Airlines Ltd. (Corporation) was constituted under the Air Corporation Act, 1953 (for short "the 1953 Act). Regulations were framed by Appellant No. 1 in the year 1994 by Act No. 13 of 1994. The Parliament enacted Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 (for short "the 1994 Act") whereby and whereunder, the right, title and interest of Indian Airlines were transferred to Indian Airlines Limited. In terms of Section 45 of the 1953 Act, the Corporation made Regulations. Regulation 13 of the said Regulations is in the following terms:

OR if his/her continuance in employment constitutes, in the opinion of the Company (the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines), a grave security risk making his/her continuance in service detrimental to the interests of the Company;

OR if in the opinion of the Company (the Board of Directors of Indian Airlines) there is such a justifiable lack of confidence which, having regard to the nature of duties performed, would make it necessary in the interest of the Company, to immediately terminate his/her services.

Air India and Indian Airlines who have similar regulations thereafter amended Regulation 13.

A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600] wherein this Court specifically referred to Regulation 9(b) of Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations.

Sabyasachi Mukharji, CJ who delivered the minority opinion noticed the regulation framed by Indian Airlines in the following terms: