LexAIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 15 (AODL.) S.C.R. 843 AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9857-9861 OF 2011) NOVEMBER 17, 2011 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law - Conditions of Service - Alteration of, permissibility - Air India Cabin crew - Whether the management of Air India was entitled to alter the service C conditions of Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses, despite several bilateral agreements arrived at between Air India and its workmen represented by the Air lnqia Cabin Crew Association, and the Executive cadre of In-Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses - Held: It is, in fact, the prerogative of the O Management to place an employee in a position where he would pe able to contribute the most to the Company - Hence, the Air India was at liberty to adopt the revised promotion policy which was intended to benefit all the employees - The Management of Air India was always entitled to alter its E policies with regard to their workmen, subject to the consensus arrived at between the parties in supersession of all previous agreements - Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 - Labour Law. Labour Law - Promotion of workman to executive cadre F - Effect of - Held: Once an employee is placed in the Executive cadre, he ceases to be a workman and a/so ceases to be governed by Settlements arrived at between the Management and the workmen through the concerned Trade Union - Such Settlements by operation of law, cease to have G any binding force on the employee so promot~d by the Management - Service Law. Precedents - Ratio decidendi - Held: A decision is an 843 H 844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.} S.C.R A authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom - Further, the ratio of a case must be· understood having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. 8 The questions that arose for consideration in the instant appeals were: 1) Whether the promotional avenues and other terms of service of the pre-1997 cadre of Assistant Flight Pursers could be changed to their prejudice despite the provisions of the Air Corporation (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994 and, in C particular, Section 8 thereof and also in view of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Nergesh Meerza and Yeshaswinee Merchant, along with the various agreements and settlement arrived at between the parties and 2) Wheth,er in the circumstances indicated, a policy D decision of gender neutralization, which was prospective in nature, could be applied retrospectively to the pre-1997 cadre of Pursers and whether such application would be arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, as it upsets certain rights E relating to promotion which had vested in Assistant Flight Pursers belonging to the pre-1997 cadre. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. From the submissions made on behalf of F the respective parties, what ultimately emerges for decision is whether the management of Air India was entitled to alter the service conditions of Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses, despite several bilateral agreements arrived at between Air India and its workmen represented G by the Air India Cabin Crew Association, and the Executive cadre of In-Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses promoted to the Executive rank and given Grade 29, which was the starting point of the Executive cadre. The other connected question involved is whether those H Flight Pursers who had been promoted in terms of the AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. v. UNION OF 845 INDIA & ORS. revised promotion policy, would still be governed by the . A Settlements arrived at between the Management and the Unions, since they were covered by the same prior to their promotion to the Executive cadre. Another question which calls for attention is with regard to the merger of Cabin Crew effected in 1996, giving rise to the other 8 disputed questions relating to interchangeability of duties between Flight Pursers and Air Hostesses. During the course of the hearing, it was urged that the Appellant Association was mainly concerned with the status of In- Flight Supervisors prior to the merger of cadres in 1996. C In deciding the aforesaid questions, this Court will have to take into consideration the decisions rendered in Nergesh Meerza's case and Yeshaswinee Merchant's case, although, s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.