* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: February 08, 2006 + LPA 648/2004 INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. ..Appellant Through Mr.Lalit Bhasin, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra and Ms.Chaya Budhiraja, Advocates. versus UOI AND ORS. ....Respondents Through Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Raja Chatterji, Advocate. Mr.Sanjay Kary, Advocate. Mr.Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For orders see the file of LPA 646/2004. CHIEFJUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR, J FEBRUARY 08, 2006 da Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signing Date:16.01.2024 13:05 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHI AT NEW DELHI LPA No. 646-649/2004and LPA 382/99 Date of Decision: Februaryd, 2006 INDIANAIRLINESLTD am. Appellant Through: Mr.Lalit Bhasin, Senior, Advocate with Ms.Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra and Ms.Chaya Budhiraja, Advocates. UOI &ANR. CORAM Versus Respondents Through: Mr.Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Advocatewith Mr.Raja Chatterji, Advocate. Mr.Sanjay Kary, Advocate. Mr.Rajesh Tyagi, Advocate for R-3. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR "^1. Whetherthe reportersof local papersmay be allowedto see the judgment? . '•'2. To be referred to the Reporteror not? Whetherthejudgmentshould be reportedin the Digest? MARKANDEYA KATJU. C.J. 1. These writ appeals arise out ofthe commonjudgmentofthe learned Single Judge dated 21.5.2004 in four writ petitions, three filed by employees working under the Indian Airlines since beginning of their service, and one filed by the employees working under Vayudoot Limited which has been since taken over by Indian Airlines. LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 1of1 L 2. The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgmentof the learnedSingleJudgeand hencewe are not repeatingthe sameexceptwhere necessary. 3. The facts of the case are that Vayudoot Limited was incorporatedas a privatelimitedcompanyin the year 1981. It was convertedinto a public limited company in the year 1983 with shares jointly owned by Indian Airlines and Air India. On account of mounting losses and outstanding liabilities it was decided by the Government of India to merge Vayudoot Limited with Indian Airlines by its letter dated 25.5.93 addressed to Indian Airlines, Air India, Vayudoot Limited, InternationalAirports Authority of India and the NationalAirportsAuthorityof India. 4. It was also decidedby lettersofthe Ministryof Civil Aviation and Tourism dated 22.11.93 and 24.5.94 to absorb the Vayudoot Ltd. employees in Air India, Indian Airlines, National Airports Authority of India, PHHL, IGRUA and HOI. 5. In the letter dated 24.5.94 the Ministryof Civil Aviationand Tourism, Government of India it was clearly stated that the following relaxation/benefits will be given to the Vayudoot Ltd. employees on joiningthe new organizations 1. Protection of basic pay. 2. Probation period and medical examination will be waived. 3. Appointment will be subject to three years' satisfactory record of service. LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 2 of2 > 6. 7. 4. Leavebalanceof the employeeswill be transferredto the new organization. Service rendered in Vayudoot will be reckoned for the purpose of gratuity. ProvidendFund, loans and advances, medicalfacilitiesand SOL passages. Subsequently,the Ministry of Civil Aviation by order dated 24.5.94constituteda committeeto overseethe absorption process of Vayudoot employees. The members of the Committee have been mentioned in paragraph 10 of the impugnedjudgmentof the learnedSingleJudge. 8. On the same date i.e.. 24.5.94anothercircularwas issued creating a separate Department under the Indian Airlines called "Short Haul OperationsDepartment"(SHOD). This order has been quoted in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgmentand henceweare not repeatingthe same. 9. The employees of Vayudoot Ltd. absorbed in Indian Airlines in the separately created department called SHOD started claiming right to be integratedwith the existingemployees of Indian Airlines. They claimed the right to be promoted to the next higher post. They also claimed that while integratingtheirservice on the correspondingposts with the existing employees of Indian Airlines, length of service rendered by them under Vayudoot Ltd. be reckoned. This was opposed by the existing employees of Indian Airlines on the ground that there were recruitment rules governing appointment and promotion under Indian Airlines,whereas LPANo.646-649/2004 Page3of3 underVayudootLtd. therewere no such notifiedrecruitment rules and promotionswere being effectedon ad-hoc basis. This had resulted in employees of Vayudoot Ltd. being granted accelerated promotions. For instance, the employee of Vayudoot Ltd. who was inducted to post A earned promotionto a post B, and further promotionto the next higher post C in say, seven years. Acorresponding employeeof IndianAirlinesappointedto the corresponding post Aearned no promotionor at best earned promotionto the correspondingpost B. Hence, integrationas prayedfor by the employeesof Vayudoot Ltd. would be unjust to the existing employees of Indian Airlines. 10. It appears that subsequently negotiations were held for sorting out the differences and at a meeting held on 10.3.98 certain points were noted, as stated in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment. Based on the said minutes on 21.4.98, Indian Airlines issued a notification stating that the criteria to be followed after merger of inter se seniority between SHOD employees of non-technical categories and Indian Airlines non-technical categories of employees up to the grade 9 will be that SHOD employees will be placed at the bottom of the seniority of each respective pay scale/Department as on 10.3.98. Other points were also mentioned therein, but we are not going into the same here. 11. Thereafter, it seems a meeting was convened on 23.4.98 which was attended by various officials of the Ministry of LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 4 of 4 Civil Aviation,indianAirlines,technicians,generalcategory Officers, general categorystaff and others to discuss the issues relating to the demands of the employeesof Short Haul Operation Department(SHOD). The minutes of the meeting have been quoted in extenso in paragraph20 of the impugnedjudgmentand hencev\/e are not repeatingthe same here. 12. It may be noted on perusalof the same thatafinal decision could not be reachedregardingseniority,promotionetc. As regardsthe meetingheld on 10.3.98in which it was decided that the general categorystaffwill be placed at the bottom of each grade.intheir respectivedepartmentas on 10.3.98, it was stated in the said minutes of 23.4.98 that no representative of this category was present in the last meeting and they have now stated that the cut off date i.e. 10.3.98 was not suitable to them as it will result in long delay in their promotion. They, therefore, desired to continue in SHOD with proper career progression. 13. While the negotiationswere going on and some of the issues had been finally resolved, vacancies arose to the post of Manager (Commercial) in Indian Airlines, whose feeder post was the post of Deputy Manager(Commercial). The Deputy Managers (Commercial)under Vayudoot Ltd. who were absorbed as Deputy Manager (Commercial) in the SHOD of IndianAirlinesfiled WP(C) 723/98and WP(C) 931/98. Their main grievance was that Indian Airlines was LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 5of5 acting illegally in only considering the Deputy Manager (Commercial)working in the IndianAirlinesfor the purpose of promotionto the post of Manager(Commercial). It was alleged inthis petition that the petitioners have been denied their right for promotion to the post of Manager (Commercial)merely because a new Department known as SHOD has been created by the respondent arbitrarily, although, the petitioners have been discharging their duties in different Departments in Indian Airlines under the term "secondment". It was alleged that SHOD has been created merely to deprive the petitioners of their right to have further promotion like their colleagues in other Departments of Indian Airlines, though this Department is not carrying on commercial or any other type of activities and it is almost a non est Department. Itwas alleged that the only function of this Department is to issue salary cheques to the petitioners and other persons who have been absorbed in Indian Airlines after the merger of Vayudoot in Indian Airlines. It was alleged that at the time of merger ofVayudootin Indian Airlines the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation had given a solemn undertaking and assurance through various letters as well as absorption letters issued to the petitionersthat the services rendered by them in Vayudoot shall be reckoned for all purposes including for the purpose of their further promotion in higher scales or grade. However, it is alleged that respondents are going back from LPA No.646-649/2004 Page 6 of 6 ,2) # 14. their assurance. It was submitted that the principle of promissory estoppel applies and respondents cannot be allowedto backoutfrom the undertaking/assurance. In the counteraffidavitto the writ petition,the IndianAirlines and Union ofIndia statedthatthe instructionsofthe Ministry of Civil Aviation, the circular of Vayudoot and the offer of absorption from the SHOD clearly provided for the following;- (1) Vayudoot would be retained as a clearly identifiable separate division of Indian Airlines called the 'Short Haul Operations Department'. (2) The services rendered in Vayudoot vi^ould be reckoned only for the purpose of gratuity, providend fund, loans and advances, medical facilities and SOL passages, protection of basic pay and transfer of leave balance was also provided. (3) The seniority of Vayudoot employees absorbed in the SHOD of Indian Airlines was to be maintained separately in the SHOD. (4) Absorbed employees were not to be transferred to any Department of Indian Airlines Limited and they were required to LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 7 of 7 work in any stationwhere the SHOD was to operate. However, IndianAirlinescould utilize their servicesin other Departments for a limited period due to exigenciesof work. 15. The offer of appointment clearly stipulated for the maintenance of separate seniority distinct from the mainstreamemployeesof Indian Airlines. The employees of Vayudoot Limited who were absorbed/appointedin the IndianAirlineshave been giventhe benefitof IndianAirlines pay scales and all benefits provided for in Government instructions issued on 24.5.94. 16. The issue of mergerof seniorityof employeesin SHOD and Indian Airlineswas raisedfrom time to time and had been a subjectmatterof severaldiscussions. The Secretary,Civil Aviation, Government of India held meetings with representatives of the Management of Indian Airlines, representatives of SHOD on 10.3.98 and thereafter on 23.4.98. The Ministry had attemptedto seek solutionsfor permanent absorption of SHOD - employees in the mainstream of Indian Airlines by taking one category of employees at a time. 17. In respect ofpilots, a decisionwas taken that the SHOD line pilots will undergo training on Indian Airlines fleet and on getting the type endorsement,they will be placed at the bottom of the seniority of First Officers (Go-pilots). LPANo.646-649/2004 Page8of8 ^3 However, their past services will be counted for pay protection. Similarly, mrespect of Aircraft Engineers,adecision was taken that AircraftEngineersof SHOD will undergotraining on any of the IndianAirlinesJet fleetas perrequirementand after acquiring licence endorsementwill be placed at the bottom of the seniorityof Aircraft Engineer'sgrade In the respective trades. 19. Similarly,in respectof generalcategorystaff, it was decided ttiatttie generalcategorystaffof SHOD will be placedat the bottom of each grade in the respectiveDepartmentsas on 10.3.98. Future promotionsof such employeeswill be as per Indian Airlines Rules/Regulations.Anotificationdated 21.4.98 was also issued to this effect, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. It was stated in the counteraffidavitthat Indian Airlineshas a well definedrecruitmentpolicywith eligibilitycriteriafor different directentrylevelsand also promotionsto variouslevels. On the other hand in respect of Vayudoot Ltd. there was no such detailedrules and regulations. Many of the officersof Vayudoot Ltd. who were absorbed in the SHOD of Indian Airlines did not possess the minimum laid down criteriaas applicablefor appointmentin IndianAirlines. Hence, it was alleged that the petitioners who are the employees of Vayudoot cannot claim equality with employees of Indian Airlines. LPANo.646-649/2004 5 9 # 20. It is alleged that In respect of Line Pilots and Aircraft Engineers, they would be placed at the bottom of the seniorityof their cadres. In respectof generalcategoryof employees, they are to be placed at the bottom of each grade in the respectiveDepartmentas on 10.3.98and they have also acceptedthe seniorityat the bottomof the cadre. 21. It IS alleged that the employees of Vayudoot are not comparablewith the employeesof Indian Airlinesand their absorptionhas been in adistinct,separatedepartmentand thus they cannotallegeany discrimination.The petitioners who were employeesof Vayudoothave been absorbed in SHOD which is separate entity and, therefore, cannot comparetheir case with employeesof Indian Airlines. It is deniedthat there is any discrimination. 22. The IndianAirlinesOfficers'Associationfiled an application for impleadment in the writ petition. In this application, officers of Indian Airlines while opposing the two writ petitionsjustifiedplacingemployeesofVayudootLtd. at the bottomof the senioritylist at the correspondingpost held by them. 23. This, Court vide vide judgment dated 12.7.99 dismissed WP(C) 723/98 and WP(C) 931/98. In this judgmentit was held that since there were no recruitment rules under Vayudoot Ltd. and promotions were effected on ad-hoc basis, employeesof VayudootLtd. could not legallyclaime lateral entry into the corresponding posts under Indian LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 10 of10 ) s Airlinesand could not claim interse senioritybased on the length of service on the post held. The decisionto place them at the bottom of the seniorityin the post heldwas held valid. We agree with this view. 24. It appearsthat despitethe dismissalof WP (C) 723/98and WP (C) 931/98 on 12.7.99the dispute did not come to an end and a meetingwas held on 16.3.2000in which certain decisions were reached which have been quoted in paragraph 24 of the impugned judgment. Based on the minutes of the aforesaidmeeting, the Governmentof India issueda memo dated 6.4.2000requestingthat the exercise be completedin a time bound manneras per the decisions contained the minutes within a period of one month and compliancereportfurnishedtothe Ministry. 25. On 19.5.2000, the Government of India issued another memo directing compliance of its memo dated 6.4.2000. Air India expressed some reservations qua the implementation of the decision minuted vide minutes dated 16.3.2000. The Government of India on 13.7.2000 once again directed compliance of its memo dated 6.4.2000. Finally, on 5.2.2001, Indian Airlines issued a notification which is quoted in paragraph39 of the impugnedjudgment. This notificationclearly states that those officers of SHOD in the general category who are desirous of merger of their seniority as on 10.3.98 will be placed at the bottom of the respectivegrade/payscales as on 10.3.98with protectionof LPANo.646-649/2004 , Page 11 of 11 2^ # pay and past service. Such employees were asked to exercisetheiroptionfor mergerof theirsenioritywith Indian AirlinesLtd. in the prescribedformatto be submittedto the office of General Manager (Personnel) of the respective Region/Hqrs. within 30 days, in respect of employees whose optionwas not receivedwithinthe stipulatedperiod, . it shall be presumedthat he/shehas not opted to remain in SHOD. Such employeesshall forfeit all claims for merger with the mainstream. They will be retained in SHOD and offered time bound promotions as per their career progression. Two more notificationsdated 5.2.2001 were issued which are quoted in paragraph40 of the impugned judgment. These notificationssought various optionsfrom employees working in SHOD. 26. In Writ Petition (Civil) 1430/2001 (Vayudoot Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and Anr.) petitioner prayed for quashingofnotificationdated 5.2.2001 (annexureP-8 tothe writ petition)and for a mandamusdirectingthe respondents to immediately release time bound and strength based promotionsto the employees of the technical and general category staff of SHOD due from 1.1.98 and to consider the eligible employees of the technical and general category staff of SHOD for promotion/selectionto the post to be filled through inter-departmental test. 27. The impugned notification dated 5.2.2001 of the Indian Airlines is as follows:- LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 12 of12 INDIAN AIRLINESLIMITED northern region Ref. DAD/R/SHOD/SEN/131 Dated: 05.2.2001 l-G. I.Airport New Delhi-110037 notificatiom Sub :MERGER OF SENIORITYOF SHOD EMPLOYEES IN THE NON-TECHNICALCATEGORIES ASSISTANT/TYPIST _ 2940-4380 ASSISTANT/TYPIST(SR.CATG.) - 3740-5520 SUPERINTENDENT . 3980-5820 SUPERINTENDENT(S.R.) _ 4180-6270 SR. AIRHOSTESS _ 4380-6720 Consequentto ttie decisiontaken by the Ministryof Civil Aviationto mergethe seniorityof SHOD employeesin the mainstream of Indian Airlines Ltd. on voluntary basis, those employees of SHOD in the aforesaid categories who are desirous of merger of their seniority as on 10.3.98with protectionoftheirpay and pastservices. In pursuance to the above, you are advised to exercise your option for merger of your seniority with Indian Airlines Ltd. in the prescribed format to be submitted to the office of the undersigned through proper channel within 30 days of this notification. Employees in respect of whom such an option is not receivedwithinthe stipulatedperiod, it shall be presumed that he/she has opted to remain in SHOD. Such employees shall, forfeit all claims for merger with mainstream. They will be retained in SHOD and offered time bound promotionsas per theircareer progression. Sd/- for General Manager (Pers.) LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 13 of 13 4 28. In paragraph 6 to 10 of the counter affidavit of Indian Airlines details about various meetings, discussions, consultationsetc. held between Indian Airlines,employees of SHOD, mainstream Indian Airlines employees etc. has been discussed in great detail and hence we are not repeating the same. However, a perusal of the said paragraph shows that detailed discussions and consultationshad been held over a long period of time in which the view points of all concerned were considered. Afterthe receiptof the minutesof the meetingdated 10.3.98 a committee was constituted by the Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Airlines consisting of Senior Officersof Indian Airlinesto examinethe issues relatingto seniority of SHOD employees. The Committee after examining the issue in totality submitted its recommendationswhich was quoted in detail in para 8 of the counteraffidavit. The Chairmanand ManagingDirector of Indian Airlines approved the recommendations of the Committee and consequently the impugned Notification dated 5.2.2001 was issued by Indian Airlines Ltd. Against that notificationVayudoot Karamcharisfiled a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and Notification dated 5.2.2001 was quashed and directions were issuedto IndianAirlinesand Union to reframea policy of cadre merger. LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 14 of 14 29. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the Appellantchallengingthe orderdated21.5.2004passedby the learned Single Judge In W.P. (C) Nos. 848/2001, 1097/2001,1430/2001and 5618/2002. The learnedSingle Judge vide the aforesaid common order dated 21.5.2004 has set aside the decision of Indian Airlines and the Governmentof India to offer mergerto SHOD (Short Hauls Operation Department) employees who are erstwhile employeesof Vayudoot Ltd. by placingthem at the bottom of the seniority list on the posts held by them below the existingemployeesof Indian Airlinesand has quashedthe Notificationsdated5.2.2001. The learnedSingleJudgehas furtherdirectedIndianAirlinesand Union of India to reframe the seniority policy of the cadre by re-assessing and determiningthe equationof post by taking into consideration the four guidingfactors laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni 1981 f4) SCO 130 30. From the facts of the case, it appearsthat the Government of India decidedin May 1993 to mergeVayudootwith Indian Airlines Ltd. and instructions regarding the same were issued by the Ministryof Civil Aviationand Tourism in view of the mounting losses and outstanding liabilities of Vayudoot. There were two courses open to the Government. One was to terminate the services of the employees of Vayudoot upon closure/mergerof Vayudoot LPA No.646-649/2004 Page 15 of 15 ^0 Ltd. after paying closure compensationunder Section 25- FFF of the industrial Disputes Act.. The second was the humanitarianapproach to absorb employeesof Vayudoot with Indian Airlines and other organizations under the Ministryof Civil Aviationsuch as Air India. AirportAuthority of India etc. The Government of India decided on humanitariangroundsto adoptthe secondapproach. 31. The problem then arose about inter se seniority of the Vayudootemployeesand IndianAirline'semployees. Here again there were two views possible. Firstly, the Vayudoot employees could have been given lateral transfer in the relevantcategoryby which theirseniorityin Vayudootwould be maintained even after joining Indian Airlines. The second view was that they should be placed at the bottom of senioritylist i.e., belowthe IndianAirlinesemployees. 32. The Indian Airlines employeeswere totally opposed to the absorption of Vayudoot employees in Indian Airlines as it would naturally affect their seniority and chances of promotion. The Governmentof India held severalhigh level meetings with the representativesof various groups and authorities. With regardto Pilotsand AircraftEngineers,the matter got resolved. However, there could be no settlement in these meetings, in respect of categories of general staff and technicians. Ultimately, in pursuanceof the directionsgiven by the Governmentof India, the Indian Airlinestook a decisionto placethe employeesin these two LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 16 of 16 nj categories of SHOD at the bottom of the seniority list, thoughwith pay protection. 33. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment referredto the judgmentof anotherlearnedSingleJudge in WP(C) 723/98and 931/98 on 12.7.90in which the claim of Vayudoot employees of lateral entry into corresponding posts in Indian Airlines was rejected. This was because there was no recruitment rules under Vayudoot Ltd. and promotions were effected on ad-hoc basis. Hence employeesof Vayudoot Ltd. could not legally claim lateral entry into the corresponding posts under IndianAirlinesand could not claim inter se seniority based on the length of service in VayudootLtd. Hence, the decisionto place them at the bottom of senioritywas upheld. We agree with this view. 34. In our opinion,there is no illegalityin the stand taken bythe Government of India and Indian Airlines. On the closure of Vayudoot Ltd. its employees could have been retrenched, but a humanitarian view was taken and it was decided to absorb them in Indian Airlines. Their pay and past service was prptected. In our opinion thereafter it was entirely for the authority concerned to decide whether there should be lateral entry of Vayudoot employees into Indian Airlines or whether Vayudoot employees should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. This is an administrative decision and it is well settled that this court does not LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 17 of17 ordinarilyinterferewith administrativedecisionsvide Tata Cellularv. Union ofIndia (1994)6SCC 851 As regards lateralentry of Vayudootemployeesinto the IndianAirlines this would have createda lot of grievanceand resentment among Indian Airline's employees as their seniority and chances of promotionwould have been affected. Hence, the decisiontaken by the authoritiescannot be said to be whollyarbitraryor irrational. 35. As regards the decision in State of Maharashtra v. ChandrakantAnant Kulkarni 1981 (4) SCC 130 in that case the_SupremeCourtwas layingdown the law relatingto integrationof governmentservants allottedto the services of the new States. In our opinion, this decision is clearly distinguishable. In the presentcase, there is mergerof the two Airlines having comparable categories of employees. Moreover, in ChandrakantAnant Kulkarni'scase (supra) it has nowhere been said that on merger of organizationA with the organization B the employees of the former cannot be placed at the bottom ofthe senioritylist in the respective grade/cadre. 36. It may be mentioned that after the merger of erstwhile Vayudoot employees into the mainstream of IndianAirlines, a total number of 5331 employees have been promoted from the merged seniority of non-technical category of Staff and officers, out of which Officers are 1928 and staff is 3403. The number of employees who did not opt for merger LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 18 of18 of seniorityand remained in SHOD is 34 out of which 12 employees have availed promotion in SHOD. Hence, reopening the entire issue of absorption of Vayudoot employeesinto SHOD would mean nullifyingthe promotion grantedto the Vayudootemployeesbetween 1994 to 2001 while in SHOD and also nullifyingthe promotionsgrantedto the employeesfrom the mergedseniorityof IndianAirlines. 37. The employees of SHOD have voluntarily opted to be merged into the mainstream of Indian Airlines. As a consequence, 598 out of 632 employees in the non technical cadre of staff and all 97 officers of SHOD have V been mergedinto the mainstreamof IndianAirlines. 38. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciatethat the merger has been an ongoing process since 1994 and the decisionsthat were implementedwere taken after due deliberationsand consultationbetween the authorities, Indian Airlines employees and erstwhile Vayudootemployees. Turning back the clock at this stage would mean revoking the total absorption process of erstwhile Vayudoot into SHOD. ^ 39. In our opinion,the Governmentof India and IndianAirlines have tried to strikea balancebetweenthe competingclaims of Vayudootemployeesand IndianAirlinesemployees. The policydecisionsappearedto befair and equitableto the two sets ofemployees. It is not properforthis Courtto interfere in the administrative matters. LPANo.646-649/2004 Page 19 of 19 ir 40. 41. In V.K.Dubeyand Ore. v. UnionofIndiaand Ore.(1997) S-SCC_81 the appellantswere employedon the dieselside of locomotivesoperations. Subsequently,on introductionof electrical engines they were given training and were absorbedon the electricallocomotiveside. The questionof inter se seniority of employees already working on the electricallocomotiveside and those shiftedfrom the diesel locomotiveside to the electricallocomotiveside arose for consideration. In paragraph five of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed : ^ijay Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that since they had been workingon the diesel side for a long numberof years, merely becausethey were sent to training for three months to be absorbed in the electricallocomotiveoperations,theirentireprevious length of service cannot be wiped out causing detrimentto their policy. Therefore,the view taken by this Court requires reconsideration. We find no force in