[Akasa Air Case] DGCA At Liberty To Act Against Pilots In Breach Of Contract, No Absolute Restraint: Delhi High Court

While dealing with a plea moved by budget carrier Akasa Air in relation to resignation of its pilots without serving mandatory notice period, the Delhi High Court has said that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is at liberty to act against the defaulting pilots in case they are in breach of the contract.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh observed that in case of non-compliance of the contract, the Civil Aviation Rules, 2017 become operative and thus, DGCA can act in accordance with the said Rules as well as the extant law against the party in breach.

The court agreed with the submission put forth by the airline and observed that there is no absolute restraint against the DCGA or the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation to take such an action.

Justice Arora was dealing with a plea moved by Akasa Air after 43 pilots engaged with it resigned without serving 6 months mandatory notice period. The airline sought direction on DGCA and Union Government to take cognizance of its representations in respect of future infractions by its serving pilots in case they too resign without serving the minimum contractual notice period.

Akasa Air also sought clarification of two interim orders passed in 2018 and 2019 by a coordinate bench and submitted that the protection under the said orders extends to the pilots only if they duly comply with their minimum contractual notice period.

It was the airline’s case that where there is non-compliance of the contract, the conditional interim orders cease to operate and the DGCA and Union Government are at liberty to initiate inquiry against the defaulting pilots and take appropriate action under the extant law.

While disposing of the application seeking interim relief , the court clarified that the interim orders are “clear and unequivocal” inasmuch as they are conditional upon the pilots and airlines duly complying with the terms of the contract.

“…. and in case of non-compliance, the CAR, 2017 becomes operative; and Respondent No.1 is at liberty to act in accordance with the said CAR, 2017 and under the extant law against the party in breach,” the court said.

Justice Arora further noted DGCA’s stand that it has no jurisdiction to consider a representation made by the airline against the defaulting pilots under the extant law including CAR, 2017, as it is a contractual dispute.

In this backdrop, the court observed that the issue of jurisdiction would have to be decided finally before issuing a direction to the DGCA and Union Government to consider and inquire upon a complaint received from the airline.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the representation of Petitioners against (future infractions) by the defaulting pilots cannot be issued at this interim stage without first deciding the issue of jurisdiction of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2,” the court said.

However, the court clarified that if during the pendency of the matter, in case a pilot acts in breach of the minimum contractual notice period as specified under the employment agreement, then such an action will be at pilot’s own risk and will remain subject to the outcome of the petition.

The court has directed the authorities to file their replies to the petition within two weeks. The matter is now listed for October 13.

About the Petition

Akasa Air has sought directions on the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation and DGCA to enforce the provisions of Civil Aviation Requirement, 2017, which state the requirement of servicing mandatory notice period, and take necessary action against the erring pilots.

It is Akasa Air’s case that the agreements executed between it and the pilots required them to serve at least six-months’ notice period before leaving to enable the airline to make alternative arrangement.

The airline states that it was in a precarious situation where a number of pilots had resigned without serving any notice period which has resulted in disruption of its operations and that it was compelled it to cancel, re-schedule or ground flights at the last minute.

“With every such illegal resignation that is conveniently carried out by the pilots without consequence, other pilots are encouraged to follow the same course of action. This is clear from the ever-increasing number of Pilots who have resigned since the first resignation in June 2023,” the plea states.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, with Advocates Ashish Bhan, Aayush Mitruka, Lisa Mishra and Abhinav Srivastava appeared for the petitioners.

Advocates Anjana Gosain, Avshreya Rudy and Nippun Sharma appeared for the respondents.

Advocates Awantika Manohar, Nilesh Sharma and Dhawesh Pahuja appeared for Federation of Indian Pilots.

Senior Advocate Vivek Kohli, with Advocates Neetika Bajaj and Siddharth Puri appeared for Indian Pilots Guild.

Case Title: SNV AVIATION PVT LTD & ANR. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 905

Click Here To Read Order