IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 16155 of 2005(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. INDIAN AIRLINES PLANT ENGINEERS FORUM, THROUGH ITS CONVENOR, SRI. MATHUKUTTY NINAN, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673647. 2. MATHUKUTTY NINAN, S/O.SHRI P.C.NINAN, DEPUTY MANAGER(PE), GROUND SUPPORT DEPTT., INDIAN AIRLINES LTD., CALICUT AIRPORT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673647. 3. M.LOGANATHAN, MANAGER(PE), INDIAN AIRLINES, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673 647. 4. P.N.ANIL RAJ, DEPUTY MANAGER(PE), INDIAN AIRLINES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. VASANTHY NAMBIATH, MANAGER(PE), INDIAN AIRLINES, MUMBAI. 6. ABDUL SAMAD BABU, MANAGER(PE), INDIAN AIRLINES, MUMBAI. 7. T.A.PIOUS, MANAGER (PE), GROUND SUPPORT DEPARTMENT, INDIAN AIR LINES, MUMBAI. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, NEW DELHI. 2. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD., THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIRLINES HOUSE, GURDWARA RAKAB GANJ ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB, ADDL.CGSC INDIAN AIRLINES - SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16155/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HPDO2/1740 DT. 20.1.1997 WITH AVERAGE NUMBER OF PASSENGERS CARRIED PER DAY. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN/RULES/206/1374 DT. 5.2.97 BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) OF INDIAN AIRLINES. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25.1.97 FROM THE G.S. OFFICERS OF W.R. TO THE M.D. OF INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25.2.97 BY THE I.A.O.A. TO DO. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN/RULE/12/98 DT. 27.2.98. FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE-I) I.A.L. N. DELHI. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27.2.98 FROM THE DO. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27.2.98 FROM THE DO. DO. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.9.01 ISSUED FROM THE DO. DO. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.9.01 ISSUED FROM THE DO. DO. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 2.4.03 IN OP. NO.11367/03 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO.1450/03 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT WITH THE DECISION. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 19.1.83 FROM THE CHIEF ENGINEERING MANAGER, INDIAN AIRLINES , PALAM. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE CHART COMMUNICATED BY CHIEF ENGINEERING MANAGER TO THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.FIN/RULE/203/62 DT. 15.4.05 ISSUED FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER (FIN)-II, IAL, N.DELHI. EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 3.1.04 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. EXT.P16:- COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 25.6.04 ISSUED FROM THE INDIAN AIRLINES. EXT.P17:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 10.7.04 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. EXT.P18:- COPY OF THE DO. DT. 25.4.05 DO. DO. EXT.P19:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM REGISTRAR. EXT.P20:- COPY OF THE DETAILED CHART OF THE HIERARCHY OF THE POSTS IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16155 OF 2005 W -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th February, 2008 JUDGMENT First petitioner is a registered Association of Plant Engineers under the Indian Air Lines. It represents about 100 members. Petitioners 2 and 3 are Deputy Manager (PE) and Manager (PE) under the Ground Support Department (GSD). Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: "i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P14. ii) Declare that Ext.P14 cannot be made applicable to the petitioners' category. iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P11. iv) Declare that exclusion of the category of Plant Engineers like Assistant Manager (PE), Deputy Manager (PE), Manager (PE) and Senior Manager (GS) and above, from the benefits conferred upon the category of Engineering (SS) staff was arbitrary and therefore illegal. WPC. 16155/05 W 2 v) Declare that the staff of the petitioners category (Plant Engineers) like Asst. Manager (PE), Deputy Manager (PE), Manager (PE), Senior Manager (GS) and above, are also entitled to the benefits of the Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI) Scheme, as are applicable to Engineering (SS) Staff. vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the respondents to confirm the benefits under Exts.P5 to P9, to the Plant Engineers (petitioners) category like Asst. Manager (PE), Deputy Manager (PE), Manager (PE), Senior Manager (GS) and above of Ground Support Department with effect from the dates on which the respective benefits were granted to the staff of the Engineering Officers (SS) category, ie. 1.1.1998. vii) Declare that the Indian Airlines Officers Association (IAOA) should not represent the petitioners category for any settlements with Indian Airlines Management." WPC. 16155/05 W 3 2. The issue that is raised relates to the payment of Productivity Linked incentive Scheme (in short PLI Scheme). PLI Scheme was evolved in January, 1997. It came to be published by letter dated 20.1.1997. Petitioners and other Officers whom the first petitioner represents, belong to the category of Assistant Manager(PE) / Deputy Manager (PE) / Manager (PE) and Senior Manager 9GS). 3. The contention of the petitioners appears to be that PLI being given to the petitioners is afflicted with arbitrariness. The persons in the feeder category from which promotions have been made are drawing far higher PLI than the promotees, is their main complaint. It is their case that this arbitrary position is obtaining only in relation to 120 persons who are working as Plant Engineers. It is their further case that there are nearly 12000 employees in the Air Lines and apart from the 120 employees, the discrimination in the matter of payment of PLI is not present. It is the case of the petitioners that in other General Departments, the PLI parameters for general feeder Officers and WPC. 16155/05 W 4 the general category employees are similar. They filed Ext.P3 representation. They rely on Exts.P4 and P5. In Ext.P5, the technical cadre Officers of the Engineering Department other than those in the Plant Engineers were included and given new designation. By Ext.P6, on the same day, another office order was issued re-designating the Officers. It is further stated that when by Ext.P5, Officers of the Engineering Department, excluding the petitioners' category were given higher PLI, their Executive Officers had also to be paid a still higher PLI and for that, another Office Order came to be passed as Ext.P7. Ext.P8 is another order issued revising PLI to other Engineering Officers who, by Exts.P5 and P6 were known as "Support Services". Ext.P9 is an order revising PLI of the Executive Cadre of Engineers (SS). The petitioners and others similarly situated moved a writ petition as OP No.11367/03 which came to be disposed of by Ext.P10 with a direction to the Managing Director to take a final decision in the matter. Ext.P11 is the decision taken on the same. By Ext.P11, the claim of the WPC. 16155/05 W 5 petitioners stood rejected. Ext.P14 is a communication purported to be based on the Schemes signed with the Indian Airlines Officers Association (for short `IAOA'). It is stated that neither the petitioners, nor the Plant Engineers under the petitioners' category are Members of IAOA and it is stated that yet the Scheme is made applicable to the petitioners without even consulting them. 4. A Counter Affidavit is filed, followed by an Additional Counter Affidavit and other pleadings are also there. Heard Shri Kurian George Kannanthanam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Jayasanker Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Airlines. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is absolutely no basis for the treatment meted out to the petitioners. There is discrimination, he submits. Based on hierarchy, the persons in the higher cadres should get higher amount as PLI than the persons who are in the feeder categories, he submits. He submits that the present situation is WPC. 16155/05 W 6 one where if a person in the category fails to make it to the higher category, he gets higher amount as PLI while persons who succeed in showing that they are fit to be promoted to the higher category will get far lower amount, he contends. On the other hand, learned standing counsel would refute the contentions of the petitioners that payment of PLI is on hierarchial basis. He makes reference to examples of other posts in the Organisation to show that the payment of PLI need not go up on promotions being made. An example which he gave was the General Manager (Operations). He points out that the General Manager (Operations) gets Rs.9 Lakhs per month as allowance including PLI. On the other hand, he points out that the Regional Head to whom the General Manager (Operations) reports gets Rs.40,000/= as PLI per month. He would further contend that PLI is decided on the basis of consensus arrived at on the basis of settlements between various categories of employees. According to him, a perusal of Ext.P11 would show that the Plant Engineers were being paid PLI on the basis that WPC. 16155/05 W 7 they were engaged on the basis of settlements/understandings with the Officers' Association and this would go to clinchingly show that the contention that they are not members of the Airlines Officers' Association, is only to be rejected. He would further contend that if it is the case of the petitioners that they are not members of the Association, the petitioners would not even be entitled to PLI which is vouch-safed for the members of the Indian Airlines Officers' Association. In other words, it is his case that the differential rates of PLI have been arrived at on the basis of the Settlements arrived at between various categories of employees recognizing the nature of the work they discharge. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would then submit that it is not as if the PLI has been fixed in respect of all employees on the basis of settlements. But he is not able to demonstrate before me any case of PLI being made without support of a Settlement. One of the main complaints raised by the petitioners is that Engineers (SS) are being paid the same WPC. 16155/05 W 8 PLI as is being paid to the Aircraft Engineers. This question was considered in Ext.P11. In Ext.P11, the Authority has given reasons to hold that though Engineers (SS) were not formerly given the benefit which was given to the Aircraft Engineers, it is realised that their services are inter-linked with those that of the Aircraft Engineers. It was in such circumstances that they came to be treated on par with Aircraft Engineers. The rationale appears to be that both Engineers (SS) and Aircraft Engineers were concerned with engineering aspects relating to the Aircraft. Petitioners, on the other hand, were actually ground staff and not dealing with Engineering aspects relating to Aircraft. In the Argument Note submitted by the petitioners, it is specifically stated that they are not challenging any benefit given to others. It is their case that if the benefits are given to any Engineering categories, the same cannot be denied to those who can be placed similarly situated. As already noticed, in Ext.P11, the petitioners cannot be treated on par with Engineers (SS) or the of Aircraft Engineers for the reasons which are already WPC. 16155/05 W 9 mentioned in Ext.P11. Petitioners as Plant Engineers are stated to have been receiving the benefit of PLI on the basis that they are Members of the Association. I do not think that it is open to the petitioners who were receiving the benefits to turn around and disown their membership of the Association. Also otherwise, in fact, they would not be entitled to get any PLI. It is not a case where there is any challenge to the constitutional validity of the Settlement on the score that it is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, I would think that there is no merit in the Writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.