Air India Disinvestment: Madras High Court Grants Interim Relief To Employees' Union For Retention Of Accommodation, Medical Facilities

Further, a writ of mandamus is sought forbearing 100% disinvestment and transfer of Government's stake in the national carrier, until the uncertainties regarding wage revision due from 2007, leave encashment terms, and job security etc. post disinvestment is taken care of after due consultation with the employees.

The petitioner Union claims that when the disinvestment of Air India was notified, various recognised trade unions met with the Minister of Civil Aviation to express their reservations, and as a result, a committee was constituted to submit recommendations for the benefit of employees for a smooth transition.

The recommendations made by the bilateral Committee consisting of three General Managers and the representatives of six unions/associations and the improvised subsequent demands of the petitioner Union are as follows:

• Revision of pay scale as per the 3rd PRC (Pay Revision Committee for PSEs) recommendations of 2007 effective from 2017.
• Job Security till the age of superannuation, i.e., till 58 years of age against the assurance that the employees will be retained for a period of one-year post disinvestment. The draft purchase agreement clause that post one year, employees' retention will be the discretion of buyer is against the service regulations and standing orders, contends the petitioner Union.
• Expeditious framing of Voluntary Retirement Scheme(VRS) in case of disinvestment, that aligns with the guidelines laid down by the Department of Public Enterprises (DPEs). The petitioner Union also contends that the DPE guidelines mandate that VRS must be framed prior to the handing over of a Public Sector Enterprise to new employer, citing the case of BALCO enterprises.
• The petitioner Union submits that employees are entitled to gather up to 300 days of privilege leave and 120 days of sick leave and claim leave encashment at the time of their superannuation. The Committee as well as the petitioner union submits that there must be a provision for leave encashment due before disinvestment as well as the transfer of accumulated leaves to the new employer for licensed cadre employees
• Another demand placed by the trade union is that gratuity must be paid to all employees before disinvestment. With regards to provident fund, total fund available in an individual employee account with the Trust should be transferred to the EPFO.

In line with the Committee recommendations, the petitioner union also pressed for the continuation of the existing medical scheme-Contributory Family Medical Scheme (CFMS), and not the proposed Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). The same was put forward on the grounds that CGHS is a contributory scheme and deductions will be made from the wages of the already lower wages of employees covered by the scheme every month. Since CGHS is a contribution dependent scheme, the employees apprehend that they won't get treatment in good private hospitals, adds the plea.

With respect to colony accommodation, the Union submits that the housing allowance currently given by the Company is not sufficient to get decent housing in any of the Indian cities. Hence they sought colony accommodation till the age of superannuation against the sudden notice for leaving the premises within six months in the background of disinvestment and the threat of eviction notice upon failing to do so. According to the petitioner, it was also notified that if an undertaking to the effect that they will leave the premises within a stipulated period is not given within 15 days, Justice Dharmadhikari Committee (JDC) arrears and other financial benefits would be withheld.

The petitioner has also voiced the demand for the retention of SC/ST/OBC quotas in services even if disinvestment occurs, and the maintenance of status quo with regards to passage facilities for serving and retired employees. There have also been other demands for payment of arrears of salary and financial benefits as per the Justice Dharmadikari Committee recommendations(2012) and flying allowance to the cabin crew as per the order of the Supreme Court. Among other things, the petitioner Union also asks for rectification of anomalies in wages of cabin crew and stagnation of employees in the office cadre even after 20 years of service.

The Trade Union submits that even after repeated attempts for consultations and various representations to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the management of Air India, the process has been progressing almost unilaterally by keeping the employees in the dark.

The petitioner union was represented by Senior Advocate R. Vaigai. She argued that the drastic dismantling of the existing service conditions of the Air India employees without prior notice is contrary to Article 14 of Constitution. She submitted that the denial of job security, non-retention of colony accommodation, and change of medical scheme applicable is violative of the right to livelihood of the employees under Article 21.

The matter has been listed for subsequent hearing on January 7.

Case Title: Air India Corporation Employees Union v. Union of India & Ors. & Connected Matters

Case No: WP/25568/2021 (Service)