Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.46 seconds)The Air Corporations Act, 1953
Indian Airlines Ltd vs Prabha D. Kanan on 10 November, 2006
It is no doubt true that in INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED v. PRABHA D KANAN (1 supra)
a distinction was drawn between the employees who joined Air India's service
before the Repeal Act of 1994 and thereafter and the Service Regulations were
held to be applicable to the respondent therein. However as we could see the
question whether the Service Regulations continue to have the statutory force or
not was neither argued nor decided in the said case.
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 8 in The Air Corporations Act, 1953 [Entire Act]
The Chairman And Managing Director, ... vs Indian Airlines Technical Assistants ... on 12 June, 1996
Therefore, the said question needs consideration in the light of the finding
recorded in AIR INDIA LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA (2 supra) that the Service
Regulations are not saved by Section 8 of the Repeal Act of 1994 and that they
ceased to be effective on 29.01.1994 i.e., the date on which the Air
Corporations Act, 1953 stood repealed. Indisputably therefore, the Service
Regulations do not have any statutory force with effect from 29.01.1994.
So far as the appellant herein is concerned, after the repeal of the Air
Corporations Act, 1953, the appellant company is no longer a statutory
corporation. After the Repeal Act of 1994 came into force, the Indian Airlines
Corporation was renamed as the Indian Airlines Limited having been registered as
a company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and its management and
other functions are governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. It
is explained in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant company
that the Service Regulations were adopted as an interim arrangement by the Board
of Directors of the National Aviation Company of India Limited (NACIL), the
predecessor-in-interest of Air India Limited, in its meeting held on 28.2.2007
so as to apply the same to the employees of the erstwhile Indian Airlines
Limited till such time their rules & regulations were framed.
In this scenario, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Service
Regulations are being applied to the services of the employees of the appellant
company like any other terms & conditions governing their services and thus the
power under Regulation 13 (a) was invoked by the Chairman & Managing Director
for terminating the services of the petitioners in exercise of the powers
delegated under clause 3.3 of the Instrument of Delegation. Reiterating that
the Service Regulations lost their statutory flavour, the learned counsel for
the appellant would submits that the action of the Chairman & Managing Director
in invoking the power under Regulation 13 (a) as a delegatee of the Board of
Directors cannot be held to be illegal or without jurisdiction.
We find merit in the said submission.
Ms. Sucharita Roy ...For The vs Uma Devi Reported In on 11 April, 2011
The order passed by the learned Single Judge is sought to be assailed by Ms. V.
Uma Devi, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the contention that
as per clause 3.3 of the Instrument of Delegation of Administrative Powers which
was approved by NACIL on 29.5.2008, the Chairman & Managing Director is
empowered to take a decision on behalf of the Board of Directors to meet any
emergency subject to ex-post-facto approval of the Board. According to the
learned counsel it is in exercise of the said power conferred under clause 3.3,
the impugned orders of termination dated 26.5.2010 came to be passed by the
Chairman & Managing Director. Since the action taken by the Chairman & Managing
Director was subsequently ratified by the Board of Directors of the company in
its meeting held on 25.7.2010, the learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the impugned orders of termination cannot be held to be without
jurisdiction.