New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday refused to pass any interim order on a batch of cross-appeals filed by Air India (AI) and various employees' unions against a Bombay High Court order on implementation of Dharmadhikari panel's recommendations on merger of erstwhile Indian Airlines and AI.
"There has to be a practical way out. Any order should not be harsh on your employer (AI) also," a bench of justices Anil R Dave and Kurian Joseph said, adding, "At this stage, we are not going to grant interim reliefs (to employees' unions)."
On being asked by the bench to find a "way out" to the impasse, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the national carrier, said a four-member panel headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice D M Dharmadhikari was appointed to look into various issues that had arisen after the merger of AI and Indian Airlines.
"Earlier, salaries were less and allowances were huge and the commission found that the total package was unviable," Rohatgi said, adding the panel suggested substantial increase in basic salary and "trimmed" certain allowances.
This arrangement may lessen the present salary, but increases the post retirement benefits, he said.
"You cannot be given flying allowances, which used to be USD 2,000 to USD 2,500, without flying minimum stipulated hours," Rohatgi said, adding that around 3,500 AI officials have already accepted the panel's recommendations.
The AG said that the AI management was not bound to give a notice to the employees under a provision of the Industrial Disputes Act before implementing the panel's report.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, appearing for one of the employees' unions, said that 35 percent wage cut has been enforced without following the due process of law.
"Officers have been given the increment and our salaries have been cut. We are seeking restoration of our earlier salaries," he said.
AI and various unions have filed cross-appeals against the Bombay High Court order which on January 27 had declined to stay the implementation of the panel's report.
The High Court, however, had held that AI should have given notices to employees as implementation of the panel's report amounted to change in service conditions.
The panel headed by Justice Dharmadhikari had in January
2012 submitted its report on the integration of about 29,000 employees of unified Air India, including pilots, cabin crew and engineers and had suggested measures, including salary rationalization of staff.
During earlier hearing, the court had said that the issue, which needed to be decided, was the applicability of section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The section says that an employer cannot make changes with respect to service conditions of its employees without serving them a notice of 21 days before making the changes under the Act.
Earlier, the High Court had dealt with the issues of 75 percent of wages and salary for the workers and had asked the unions to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal regarding lowering of salary allowances following the merger.
The unions had contended that the management should have issued notices to them under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act before altering service conditions.
The petitions were filed in the High Court by the unions against the national carrier over the "arbitrary" change in service conditions of the pilots, engineers and other employees post merger.
The unions, however, contested the recommendations of the Dharmadhikari panel.
The unions had argued that the airline management could not unilaterally transfer employees to other departments of sister concerns.
In one of the petitions, Indian Commercial Pilots' Association, representing the former Indian Airlines pilots, had challenged the January 2013 notifications by the airline which provided for only 75 percent of the arrears payable to the pilots till November 2012.
In November 2011, the airline management had fixed pilots' emoluments for 72 flying hours as well as the "lay over subsistence allowance". The pilots rejected the lower allowances and demanded full payment terming it as a move to alter service conditions.
