In a recent development in the ongoing dispute between budget carrier Akasa Air and its pilots, the Delhi High Court has issued a significant ruling regarding the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)'s authority to take action against pilots in breach of their employment contracts. This decision comes after 43 pilots employed by Akasa Air resigned without serving the mandatory six-month notice period, causing operational disruptions for the airline.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the case, emphasized that the DGCA is within its rights to act against pilots who breach their contracts and violate the Civil Aviation Regulations 2017 (CAR 2017). The court's ruling clarified that there is no absolute restraint against the DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) from taking action against parties that violate CAR 2017, despite earlier interim orders passed by the Court in 2018.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case at hand revolves around a dispute between budget carrier Akasa Air (operating as SNV Aviation Private Limited) and a group of 43 pilots employed by the airline. These pilots had resigned from their positions without serving the mandatory six-month notice period, leading to substantial operational disruptions for Akasa Air. In response to these resignations, Akasa Air sought legal intervention through a plea filed in the Delhi High Court.
Contentions of the Parties:
Akasa Air argued that its employment agreements with the pilots explicitly required them to serve a minimum notice period of six months before leaving the airline. This contractual clause was essential for the airline to make alternative arrangements and ensure the smooth continuation of its flight operations. The airline contended that the abrupt resignations by the pilots, without adhering to the notice period requirement, had resulted in significant disruptions to its flight schedules. Akasa Air claimed to have cancelled numerous flights and experienced operational challenges since June, adversely affecting both passengers and the airline's business.
The DGCA contended that it lacked the jurisdiction to intervene in contractual disputes between airlines and their pilots. It argued that such disputes fell within the realm of employment agreements and were not under the purview of the aviation regulator. The aviation regulator emphasized that it was in the interest of both parties involved that Akasa Air adhered to the mandate to maintain a limited flight schedule if it did not have a sufficient number of pilots to operate effectively. The DGCA suggested that the airline's compliance with this requirement was essential for ensuring passenger safety and preventing further operational disruptions.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court affirmed that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) possesses the authority to take action against pilots who breach their employment contracts and violate the Civil Aviation Regulations 2017 (CAR 2017). The Court clarified that there is no absolute restraint against the DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) from taking action against parties that contravene CAR 2017. This ruling essentially upheld the DGCA's jurisdiction in such matters. The Court addressed the issue of the clarification of interim orders dated 25.07.2018 and 11.10.2019. It emphasized that these orders were contingent upon pilots and airlines duly complying with the terms of their employment contracts. In the event of non-compliance, CAR 2017 would become operative, and the DGCA would have the liberty to act in accordance with CAR 2017 and the prevailing law against the party in breach. Therefore, these interim orders were not an impediment to the DGCA taking lawful action against defaulting parties.
While acknowledging the DGCA's stance that it lacked jurisdiction to mediate in contractual disputes between airlines and their pilots, the Court emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction needed to be conclusively determined before issuing any express direction to the DGCA and the MCA. The Court held that it was imperative to resolve the jurisdictional question regarding the DGCA's involvement in such disputes.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court declined to issue a direct order to the DGCA and the MCA to act upon any potential representations that Akasa Air might file in the future against pilots who could resign without serving the stipulated notice period. It reasoned that, given the DGCA's assertion of lacking jurisdiction in contractual matters, the jurisdictional issue should be resolved before issuing any such directive. The Court emphasized that the directions sought could await the outcome of the pending petition.
Case Name: Snv Aviation Pvt Ltd & Anr. V. Directorate General of Civil Aviation & Anr.
Coram: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: W.P.(C) 12193/2023 & CM APPL. 47884/2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Sibal Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Bhan, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Ms. Lisa Mishra and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocates.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Avshreya Rudy and Ms. Nippun Sharma, Advocates along with Mr. Amit Teotia, Dy. Director; Capt. Prashant Dhalla, FoI and Mr Amit Gupta, Director for Respondents Ms. Awantika Manohar, Mr. Nilesh Sharma and Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Advocates for ‘Federation of Indian Pilots’(FIP) Mr. Vivek Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neetika Bajaj and Mr. Siddharth Puri, Advocates for ‘Indian Pilots Guild (‘IPG’)’
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
