FACTS:
3.1.Earlier, there were two separate entities in the name of Indian Airlines and Air India Limited. They were merged into one on 22.08.2007. A Scheme was also framed pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.17381 of 1991 involving the erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited. As per the said Scheme, 50% of the future vacancies were to be given to the casuals and the remaining 50% for open recruitment. The impugned present Scheme is similar to the one framed for erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited.
3.2.The decision made on the same line as seen from the impugned Scheme qua the erstwhile Indian Airlines was put into challenge before the Calcutta High Court. The ratio of 50:50 has been upheld by the Apex Court. The pattern followed for the employees at Chennai was also upheld by this Court.
3.3.After the merger of the two concerns, it was found that about 7284 permanent staff were in surplus. Needless to state there was a huge accumulation of loss running over Rs.40,000 crores. The excess man power on 01.12.2015 for the standard force was 4396 and existing force was 11680.
3.4.The Government of India laid down a plan called "Turn Around Plan". The ground operations which were available upto 1999 have been hived off in favour of the subsidiaries. Substantial structural changes have taken place. Earlier, the respondents alone were dealing with the ground operations of foreign Airlines. The change of policy resulted in the monopoly having been lost. The quality of service has been given predominant consideration and thus handling contracts have been given to other agencies. Thus, based upon the Expert Committee's advice, the respondents have hived off the ground handling work in favour of its subsidiary called AIATSL. The existing casual employees have been given contract employment.
SUBMISSIONS:
4.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order of the Division Bench has not been followed in letter and spirit while framing the impugned Scheme. The merger of the two concerns was subsequent and thus cannot have any bearing. The decision to hive off and to create a subsidiary apart from outsourcing cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The petitioners have been suffering for quite number of years. Thus the ratio of 50:50 has to go and the vacancies available at the relevant point of time i.e. 10.07.2007 will have to be taken as a basis and appointment will have to be given.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in view of the facts narrated in the counter affidavit, no interference is required. The petitioners do not have vested right. The annexure to the counter affidavit showing the details of the engagement of the petitioners would demonstrate that the petitioners have been working for only few days to 110 days over a span of large number of years. They are not working for more than a decade. The decisions have been taken out of necessity. There is a huge problem being faced by the respondents to deal with the accommodation of permanent employees. The yardstick adopted by the erstwhile Indian Airlines is being adopted now. There is a difference between the employees who are working and the petitioners and hence no interference is required.
6.The chart produced by the respondents indicating the number of days worked by the petitioners is not disputed. 110 days is the maximum number of days worked by one of the petitioners. They have been working spanning over several years starting from 1985 onwards. They are not working from the year 1999. They have been appointed on casual basis. The Scheme has been evolved on par with the one stipulated for the erstwhile Indian Airlines Limited.
7.The Government of India has pumped in enormous amount of money to keep the respondents flying. Even the very recent CAG Report indicates the pitiable condition of the respondents. Suffice it to state that as seen from the recent news paper reports, the respondents are not out of the woods despite the money pumped in by the Central Government.
8.On ground, substantial changes have come. The competition has become more and thus the monopoly has been lost. More foreign fliers have come into the field. The respondents are playing a restricted role now. The demand for quality has become louder. Changes have been brought with the avowed object of bringing a better management and quality of service. Such changes brought forth are not called in question. Even as of now, there is a huge surplus staff.
9.The power of judicial review over a Scheme is very limited. Such a Scheme has to be seen in its own context which involves both public and private interest. The respondents are admittedly a public limited concern. The observations made by the Division Bench has to be seen in the context of framing the Scheme. There is no material to hold that the petitioners would lose their seniority in the employment exchange. In this context, the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Director of Employment Exchange, in W.P.No.15915 of 1999 etc., batch, as mentioned in the counter affidavit of the respondents, is required to be seen and the same reads as under:
"Placement in daily rated vacancies, the registration index cards of the registrants will not be removed from the Live Registers for a period of two years. Candidates can get their original seniority if they produce the ousting order at the employment exchange within a period of 18 months. Even in cases of placement in temporary/permanent vacancies on regular time scale of pay, the index cards of the registrants will be restored back to its original seniority provided the candidates report back to the employment exchange within 18 months from the date of their ousting from service."
10.The Division Bench did not have the occasion to go into other aspects. There are subsequent developments that have occurred after the decision rendered. It is not as if the respondents have not framed the Scheme. They have taken into consideration the relevant materials while doing so. From the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that the attempt to put the administration on track appears to be a Herculean task. The decision of the Division Bench cannot be read like a statute. Thus it has to be seen in the context of the facts governing. The Scheme framed for the erstwhile Indian Airlines on the same line as that of the impugned one having been approved by the Apex Court also deserves to be noted. Thus this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned Scheme. The order of the Division Bench does not impinge upon the administrative measures taken by the respondents in consultation with the Government of India as it involves larger issues. The decision to form subsidiaries and hiving off certain works and outsourcing cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal and in any case, there is no challenge to it.
11.Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned Scheme framed by the respondents, warranting interference. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.