ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 294

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.H. KAPADIA, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

Case summary

ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

ASHUTOSH ... ,,, v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. AND ORS. APRIL 18, 2007 [S. H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.

) Service Law: • Seniority-Entitlement of-Promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer-Seniority ofappellant vis-a-vis respondents~Appe/lants' case that he acquired approval qualification under the Rules for promotion prior to respondents, thus was senior-Held: Under the Rules, criteria for promotion was seniority amongst the qualified and not approval qualifications-Approval qualification-approval of nine groups and licence ·on Jet Engine was prescribed under the Settlement filed before the Tribunal- However, on account of stagnation of respondents, conditional promotions given to them with retrospective effect based on policy decision thus, order ; granting conditional promotions did not violate the Rules-More so, respondents acquired approval qualifications at earlier point of time but were communicated later-Also, Directorate General ofCivil Aviation while granting approval did not go by seniority but gave approval to engineers junior to respondents-Indian Airlines Recruitment and promotion Rules.

In terms of the settlement between the Indian Airlines and All India Aircraft Engineers' Association the existing designations were revised. The new post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer was a created with effect from 1. 4. 1992 to be filled from the said feeder post of Sr. Aircraft Engineer. -+ ' Appellant was redesignated as Aircraft Engineer whereas respondent nos. 3 to 17 were redesignated as Sr. Aircraft Engineer w. e. f 1. 4. 1989. For promotion to the post ofDeputy Chief Aircraft Engineer, the Sr. Aircraft Engineer (feeder post) had to acquire approval qualification (approval of nine groups) before 1. 4. 1995. Indian Airlines established the Jet shop in 1992 in Delhi and the .. same did not get its approval in time from Directorate General ofCivil Aviation. Respondents 3 to 17 could not complete their eligibility before the cut off .. ,/ ' date and as such became stagnant. Then by order dated 7. 2.

1994 respondents 3 to 17 were given conditional promotions to the post ofDeputy Chief Aircraft _, ASHUTOSH v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 295 Engineers with effect from 1. 4. 1992/1. 4. 1993 respectively. The Jet Shop was ~ approved in February 1995. Respondents 3 to 17 were shown as senior to the appellant in the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer with effect from 1. 4. 1992/1. 4. 1993. It was appellant's case that it completed two years service in the post ofSr. Aircraft Engineer on 31. 3. 1993 and acquired the requisite qualification on 15. 12. 1993 whereas respondent nos. 3 to 17 till date have not acquired the requisite qualification and as such were not entitled to promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer and thus, Indian Airlines had erred in showing respondents 3 to 17 as se11ior to the appellant - 2(d) of Appendix 'A'. This eligibility criteria for acquiring the approval qualification was not a part of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules.

It was a part ofthe Industrial Settlement filed before the Industrial Tribunal pending the main dispute on the wage structure. After entering into the Settlement, while implementing, some difficulties were detected, therefore, a decision was taken by the Management in consultation with the Association on 9. 6. 1993 as a part of Settlement to have 20% out of 49 posts to be earmarked for Sr. Engineers. This was the decision taken as the Sr. Engineers were facing stagnation. Therefore, one has to read the impugned Order dated 7. 2. 1994 by which conditional promotions were given to respondents 3 to 17 with effect from 1. 4. 1993/1. 4. 1994 in the light of the policy decision dated 9. 6. 1993 and Note of Discussions date 23. 7. 1993. In the circumstances, it cannot be said . ,r that the impugned order dated 7. 2. 1994, based on policy decision dated 9. 6. 1993 read with Note of Discussions dated 23. 7. 1993, violated Recruitment and Promotion Rules. (Para 12] (304-C-F] 1. 3.

There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that respondents 3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications prior to 25. 11. 1993 but the communication of the approval by DGCA occurred only on 20. 11. 1994 and that was the reason why an asterisk mark was inserted against the names of the said respondents in the order dated 7. 2. 1994. This .... has been disputed by the appellant. According to the appellant, the Jet Shop .. set up in Delhi in 1992 by Indian Airlines stood approved by DGCA only in 1995 and, therefore, the management was wrong in stating respondents 3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications by 25. 11. 1993. Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondents 3 to 17 had failed to acquire approval qualifications till 1995, no fault could lie at the doorstep ofrespondents 3 to 17. These respondents could not avail of the opportunity of obtaining the approval qualifications as DGCA had not granted approval to the Jet Shop till 1995.

Further, the said respondents were senior to the appellant. There were anomalies in the master of approval qualifications which were eliminated by ) joint discussions between the Union and the Management, as indicated by Note of Discussions dated 23. 7. 1993. Moreover, the main anomaly was that while granting approval, DGCA did not go by seniority and, consequently, approvals were given earlier in point of time to engineers who were junior to the respondents which created an anomaly. There was no violation ofRecruitment and Promotion Rules. The approval qualifications formed part ofthe Industrial Settlemmt filed before the Tribunal which was subsequently modified by the policy decision dated 9. 6. 1993 read with Note of Discussions dated 23. 7. 1993 between the Management and the Association. [Para 12] (304-F-H; 305-A-C] ... , ofvacancies as per the Standard Force and Recruitment and Promotion Rules. " and, the relevant clause of Appendix 'B': "A.

Qualifications requirement for appointment Designation Qualifications Aircraft Engineer 'C' licence on one jet engine (entry into pay of IA fleet. scale) Confirmation Subject to obtaining approvals ofany two groups of Enclosure l . Crossing EB 'C' licence on one jet engine Stage of IA fleet and approvals of any. three groups of enclosure 1. Sr. Aircraft Engineer 'C' licence on one jet Engine of IA fleet an~ approvals of any six groups ofEnclosure 1. Dy. ChiefAle Engineer 'C' licence on one jet Engine of IA fleet and approvals of any nine groups of Enclosure 1. " I I. We also quote hereinbelow the relevant excerpt of Note of Discussions dated 23. 7. 1993: "After detailed deliberation, the following decisions were arrived at:- (i) That Engineers who have not been given opportunity for training on jet aircraft and Shop/ Major Maintenance approvals, as on l. 4. I993, will be given conditional promotions.

(it) Turbo prop aircraft licences held by engineers will be considered for promotion only as a one time exercise till 1. 4. 93 and such engineers will be given conditional promotion. (fu) Wherever all group approvals in Engine Overhaul shops as per the new agreement dated 31st March, 1992 have not become operative, the Engine Overhaul Trade Engineers will be promoted on conditional basis subject to the followfng:- (a) They must obtain 'C' licence on jet aircraft of IA fleet for which training has already been imparted to them within three t:onsecutive DGCA chances effective 1. 4. 1993. (b) They must obtain desired group approvals as per the clause (i), (ii) and (iii) shall have to obtain qualifications within three consecuti~e DGCA chances after getting training with effect from 1. 4:1993, failing which they will be reverted to their substantive pay scales.

(iv) The engineers who are promoted oil conditional basis as per clause (i), (ii) and (iii) shall have to obtain qualifications within three consecutive DGCA chances after getting training with effect from l. 4. 1993, failing which they will he reverted to their substantive pay scales. All other tenns and conditions of the agreement dated 31st March, 1992 will remain unchanged. " (emphasis supplied) I2. For the following reasons, we do not find any merit in this civil appeal. Firstly, under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, seniority amongst the candidates who qualified was the criteria for promotion. However, the said Rules did not prescribe such qualifications. They were left to the joint wisdom of the Management and the Association. The approval qualifications were prescribed under Settlement dated 3I. 3. 1992. These approval qualifications were prescribed under clause 2(d) of Appendix 'A', quoted hereinabove.

Appendix 'B' to the Settlement indicated that the candidate for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer had to obtain approvals of nine groups and a licence on one Jet Engine of the Indian Airlines fleet. In the present case, the recitals in the Industrial Settlement quoted hereinabove show that during the pendency of proceedings before the National Industrial Tribunal wirh regard to the parity of wage structure, bilateral negotiations took place and the Settlement herein came to be filed before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the eligibility criteria for appointment to various pay scales was laid down in the above quoted para 2(d) of Appendix ' A' . This eligibility criteria for acquiring the approval qualification was not a part ofthe Recruitment and Promotion Rules. It was a part of the Industrial Settlement filed before the Industrial Tribunal pending the main dispute on the wage structure.

After entering into the Settlement, while implementing, some difficulties were detected, therefore, a decision was taken by the Management in consultation with the Association on 9. 6. 1993 (Annexure P-2) as a part of Settlement to have 20% out of49 posts to be eannarked for Sr. Engineers. This was the decision taken as the Sr. Engineers were facing stagnation. Therefore, one has to read the impugned Order dated 7. 2. 1994 by which conditional promotions were given to respondents 3 to 17 with effect from 1. 4. 1993/ l. 4. 1994 in the light of the policy decision dated 9. 6. 1993 and Note of Discussions dated 23. 7. 1993. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 7. 2. 1994, based on policy decision dated 9. q. 1993 read with Note ofDiscussions dated 23. 7. 1993, violated Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Secondly, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that respondents 3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications prior to 25.

11 . 1993 but the communication ofthe approval by DGCA occurred only on 20. 11. 1994 and that was the reason why an asterisk mark was inserted against the names of the said respondents in the order dated 7. 2. 1994. This has been disputed by the appellant. According to the appellant, the Jet Shop set up in Delhi in 1992 by Indian Airlines stood approved by DGCA only in 1995 and, therefore, the management was wrong in stating that respondents 3 to 17 had acquired the approval qualifications by 25. Jl. 1993. Be that as it may, even assuming for the sake of argument that respondents 3 to 17 had failed to acquire approval qualifications till 1995, no fault could lie at the doorstep of respondents 3 to 17. These respondents could not avail of the opportunity ofobtaining the approval qualifications as DGCA had not granted approval to the Jet Shop till 1995. Further, as stated hereinabove, the said respondents were senior to the appellant.

Further, as stated hereinabove, there were anomalies in the matter of approval qualifications which were eliminated by joint discussions between the Union and the Management, as indicated by Note of Discussions dated 23. 7. 1993. Moreover, as stated above, the main anomaly was that while granting approval, DGCA did not go by seniority and, consequently, approvals were given earlier in point of time to engineers who were junior to the respondents which created an anomaly. For the above reasons, there is no need to discuss various judgments cited on behalf of the appellants since we have come to the conclusion that there was no violation of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The approval qualifications fonned part of the Industrial Settlement filed before the Tribunal which was subsequently modified by the policy decision dated 9. 6. 1993 read with Note ofDiscussions dated 23. 7. 1993 between the Management and the Association. 13.

For the aforestated reasons, there is no merit in this civil appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. N. J. Appeal dismissed.