Indian Airlines Officers Association vs Indian Airlines Ltd. & Ors

5. Any problem arising after the absorption of Vayudoot employees into SHOD was to be referred to a Committee constituted for that purpose. Accordingly, the appointment orders were issued in favour of the erstwhile Vayudoot employees appointing them in SHOD on and around 29.11.1994. In these appointment letters, some conditions were mentioned in which condition nos. 4 and 9 were as under :

9. In writ petition no. 723 of 1998, the present appellant - Indian Airlines Officers Association was allowed to be impleaded. As has already been stated, the said writ petitions were dismissed. However, in the present appeal, the appellants herein seek to rely substantially on the counter affidavit filed by the Indian Airlines.

11. As has been seen, till then there was no merger. Paras 2 and 3 of the minutes of this meeting are worth noting :

23. Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Indian Airlines Officers' Association (hereinafter referred to as "Officers Association" for short) firstly urged, relying upon the pleadings of the Indian Airlines, that there was no formal merger as yet between the Indian Airlines and the Vayudoot. Consequently, the decision taken first in the meeting dated 16.3.2000 followed by notification dated 5.2.2001 would be non-est in law and would be liable to be quashed. In our opinion, the argument raised has no merit. The decision to merge Vayudoot with Indian Airlines was taken as back as 25.5.1993 and this was a policy decision of the Central Government. It may be that till 16.3.2000 or the consequent notification dated 5.2.2001 there was no formal merger between the two, however, that by itself will not invalidate the decisions taken on 16.3.2000 or 5.2.2001. The policy decision taken was not only pursued but definite steps were taken in pursuance thereof and for that purpose SHOD was created as part and parcel of the Indian Airlines. After the decision was taken to merge, the facts indicate that the existence of Vayudoot was a mere formality. True it is that there was a separate procedure and that other legal formalities were not yet over, however, that by itself would not have the effect of wiping out the decision taken on 16.3.2000 or the notification dated 5.2.2001. That would be putting the clock back resulting in utter chaos now and further that by itself would be no reason to start everything afresh taking a view that since the formal merger is not there, the subsequent exercise would be non-est. On the basis of this Shri P.P. Rao also questioned the cut off date i.e.10.3.1998 provided in the notification dated 5.2.2001. This argument is principally raised in order to wipe out the cut off date. The members of the Appellant-Association could be benefited, if the cut off date is pushed forward because in that case the employees of the erstwhile Vayudoot and thereafter SHOD would be getting the seniority not from 10.3.1998 but from subsequent date. In our opinion the argument is completely incorrect.

19. The learned Judge therefore was of the opinion that in ordering the horizontal entry of the then Vayudoot employees (now SHOD employees) into the Indian Airlines, equal treatment would be given to the unequals. He therefore directed the reconsideration of the whole process taking into consideration particularly all these matters shown in the judgment.

20. As has already been stated, this judgment was appealed against before the Division Bench of the Delhi High court and the appeal was allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

41. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merits in all the Civil Appeal Nos.1269, 1270, 1271 and 1272 of 2007. All the appeals are dismissed with costs.