AIR INDIA LTD. AND ORS. versus VISHAL KAPOOR AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 28-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AIR INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
VISHAL KAPOOR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.) 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(k), 10(1), 12(2), 12(5), 18(3). 
C 33(J)(a) and 33-A. 
Seniority of pilots employed by Air !ndia-lnter-se seniority between 
Air Lines Transport Pilot Licence (ALT?) and Commercial Pilot's licence 
holders~The bone of contention was whether seniority was to be calculated 
D from the day a pilot got an ALT? licence or from the day the pilot entered 
service with only a CPL-According to Air India, the 'Adhikari group' who 
were all ex-Indian Air Force or Navy Pilots and holders of ALT? licences 
were entitled to seniority over pilots holding CPL because they had obtained 
an ALTP prior to the CPL holders-In 1998 a settlement was arrived at 
between the Indian Pilots' Guild and Air lndia-Annexure Din Clause 7(C) 
E of the 1998 settlement placed CPL holders at serial Nos. 173 to 178 and the 
'Adhikari group' against serial Nos. 205 to 218-'Adhikari group' filed writ 
petition challenging Clause 7(C) of the 1998 settlement-High Court 
dismissed the petition holding that the I 998 settlement was binding upon all 
workmen in view of S. 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act-ft was also held 
F that such a challenge could not be the subject-matter of challenge before the 
High Court in its writ jurisdiction-Correctness of-Held: A disputed question 
of.fact would normally arise when a petitioner puts forward a case on facts 
which are controverted by the respondents-The CPL holders rested their 
case on Clause 7(C) of the 1998 settlement-The 'Adhikari group' pleaded 
that the settlement was vitiated by fraud and, therefore, the CPL holders 
G should have been left to pursue their grievance before the appropriate forum 
under the Industrial Disputes Act-The High Court, therefore, was not right 
in rejecting the preliminary objection of the 'Adhikari group '-Disputes 
between the 'Adhikari group' and the CPL holders formulated-Appropriate 
Government directed to refer the disputes for adjudication by the appropriate 
H 
670 
AIR INDIA LTD. v. VISHAL KAPOOR 
671 
Industrial Tribunal-Aircraft Rules, 1937, Sch. III. 
The first appellant provided international air transport services. Its 
aircrafts were operated by pilots-in-command (PIC) and co-pilots. Unless a 
pilot had an Air Lines Transport Pilot Licence (AL TP), he could not qualify 
A 
as a PIC. The respondents were two groups of co-pilots, namely, respondents 
Nos. 1to6 (writ petitioners) and respondents Nos. 7 to 12 ('Adhikari group'). B 
The bone of contention was whether seniority as a co-pilot was to be calculated 
from the day a pilot got an AL TP or from the day the pilot entered the service 
of the first appellant with only a CPL. According to the first appellant, the 
'Adhikari group' who were all ex-Indian Air Force or Navy Pilots and holders 
of ALTP licences with 500 flying hours as PIC were entitled to seniority over C 
the writ petitioners because they had obtained an AL TP prior to the writ 
petitioners. In 1992, the writ petitioners who were holders of CPL licences 
raised a demand asking for seniority from the date of their joining the first 
appellant. In 1998 a settlement was arrived at between the Indian Pilots' Guild 
and the first appellant. Annexure 'D' in Clause 7(6} of the 1998 settlement 
placed the writ petitioners at serial Nos. 173 to 178 and the 'Adhikari Group' D 
against serial Nos. 205 to 218. 
The 'Adhikari Group' filed a writ petition before the High Court 
challenging Clause 7(C) of the 1998 settlement. The High Court dismissed 
the writ petition holding that the 1998 settlement was binding upon all 
workmen in view of the express provisions of Section 18(3) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court further held that such a challenge could 
E 
not be the subject-matter of challenge before the High Court in its writ 
jurisdiction. The' Adhikari Group' then filed a complaint before the National 
Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
which was later withdrawn. Subsequently, the 'Adhikari Group' raised a p 
dispute relating to the fixation of their seniority under the 1998 settlement 
under Section 12 of the 1947 Act before the Conciliation Officer. The 
'Adhikari Group' had claimed that senior officers of the Guild and the first 
appellant had fraudulently agreed to Clause 7(C) of the 1998 settlement so 
tha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.