CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN AIRLINES versus BINOD KUMAR SINHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 04-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN AIRLINES 
A 
v. 
BINOD KUMAR SINHA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 2001 
[S. RAIBNDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Indian Airlines Employees (Aircraft Engineering Department) Service 
Regulations 1959_:..Regulation 13(b)-Amended to the effect that no employee 
C 
to resign without giving six months notice in writing-Circular issued stipulating 
that no air taxi operator to employ anyone serving any of the national carriers 
without obtaining no objection certificate from the previous employer-Validity 
of-Upheld by High Court-On appeal held, High Court not right in striking 
down Regulation 13(b) Order of High Court set aside-Question of 
constitutionality of Regulation l 3(b) left open-Circular issued constitutionally 
D 
valid-Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 14, 16, I9(1)(g) and 21-Air Craft 
Rules I937-Rule 134. 
Regulation 13(b) of the Indian Airlines Employees (Aircraft 
Engineering Department) Service Regulations 1959 was amended to provide. 
that no employee shall resign from the employment of the Corporation 
E 
without giving six months notice in writing. Circular was issued by which a 
condition was added that "no Air . Taxi operator shall employ ·anyone 
already serving any of the national carriers, namely, Air India, Indian 
Airlines, Vayudoot and Pawan Hans without obtaining a 'No Objection 
Certificate' from the employer with whom they are working." Aggrieved, 
F 
respondents filed a petition and the High Court quashed the regulation 
without dealing with the validity or scope of the regulation. It also quashed 
the Circular. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. If the employees of the national carriers leave their 
employment without following the embargo imposed upon them that they 
cannot resign from employment except after a notice of six months as 
11rovided for in Regulation 13(b) framed under the Air Corporation Act 
and join the employment in any other air service, it affects the operation of 
the air carriers. Therefore, if the Circular was issued to give effect to the 
561 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.CR. 
objective underlying Regulation 13(b) it cannot be termed to be invalid. If 
the provision of Regulation 13(b) is valid in law and in violation of which 
an employee seeks to join employment with an airi taxi operator, the 
restriction in the Circular cannot be an infringement of his rights arising 
. under Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), 21 and 23 of the Constitution. [570-A-C] 
1.2. In the instant case, High Court did not examine the validity or 
scope of Regulation 13(b); as such the impact of the Regulation on the 
Circular also could not be examined. Thus, the relief granted by the High 
Court in quashing Regulation 13(b) is set aside. The question whether 
Regulation 13(b) is valid or otherwise is kept open to be considered in a . 
proceeding that may arise hereafter in view of the fact that the respondents 
who obtained the relief at the hands of the High Court have remained ex-
parte in the proceedings. [570-E; 564-G; HJ 
2. Power has been exercised by the Government in framing Rule 134 
which enables the operation of an air transport service by an undertaking 
other than the scheduled air transport service or a foreign air transport service 
and that special permission of the Central Government is subject to such terms 
and conditions as it may think fit to impose in each case; one of those conditions 
is to enable the DGCA to impose appropriate conditions. Therefore, it cannot 
be said that the impugned Circular has been issued without any power or 
authority under theAir Craft Act or the Rules. [569-A-C] 
3. The objective of Rule 134 is based on the Air Craft Act and also on 
the Air Corporations Act. The Air Corporations Act provides for 
establishment of Air Corporations to facilitate the proper, economic and 
efficient services. Rule 134(1) in carrying the objectives debars any person 
other than a Corporation or its associates to operate any scheduled air 
transport service. Rule 134(3) makes other air transport services being 
permitted su!>ject to conditions to be imposed by Government of DGCA~ 
Therefore, the Circular in question falls within the scope of the enactment 
and the Rules made therein. [569-D; E; F; G;] 
4. It cannot be said that the embargo that an employee cannot resign 
from employment of the Corporation without giving six months n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.