Aviation Industry Employees ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9910 Bom

                                         p-oswpl-30047-2022 (NOB)

Pdp


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

          WRIT PETITION (L) NO.30047 OF 2022

All India Service Engineers Association ...Petitioner
      V/s.
Union of India & Ors.                 ...Respondents

Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, senior advocate (not present today) a/w.
Ms. Rohini Thyagarajan for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Aditya
Thakkar, Ms. Savita Ganoo, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Pranav Thakur,
Mr. Amogh Singh and Ms. Smita Thakur for respondent nos.1
and 2 - Union of India.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, senior advocate a/w. Ms. Sneha Prabhu,
Ms. Heena Shaikh, Mr. S.D. Shetty and Mr. Rakesh Singh i/by.
M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.
Mr. Vijay Purohit a/w. Ms. Nikita Bangera, Mr. Faizan
Mithaiwala and Mr. Samkit Jain i/by. P & A Law Offices for
respondent no.6.

                        WITH
          WRIT PETITION (L) NO.30213 OF 2022

Aviation Industry Employees Guild     ...Petitioner
      V/s.
Union of India & Ors.                 ...Respondents

Mr. Ashok D. Shetty a/w. Ms. Rita K. Joshi and Mr. Swapnil P.
Kamble for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Aditya
Thakkar, Ms. Savita Ganoo, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Pranav Thakur,
Mr. Amogh Singh and Ms. Smita Thakur for respondent nos.1
and 2 - Union of India.
Mr. Vijay Purohit a/w. Ms. Nikita Bangera, Mr. Faizan
Mithaiwala and Mr. Samkit Jain i/by. P & A Law Offices for
respondent no.3.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Sneha Prabhu,
Ms. Heena Shaikh, Mr. S.D. Shetty and Mr. Rakesh Singh i/by.
M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.



                               1
                                                p-oswpl-30047-2022 (NOB)




                          WITH
            WRIT PETITION (L) NO.30244 OF 2022

Air Corporation Employees Union Western
Region-Mumbai                      ...Petitioner
     V/s.
Union of India & Ors.              ...Respondents

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Mihir Joshi
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Aditya
Thakkar, Ms. Savita Ganoo, Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. Pranav Thakur,
Mr. Amogh Singh and Ms. Smita Thakur for respondent nos.1
and 2 - Union of India.
Mr. Vijay Purohit a/w. Ms. Nikita Bangera, Mr. Faizan
Mithaiwala and Mr. Samkit Jain i/by. P & A Law Offices for
respondent no.3.
Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Sneha Prabhu,
Ms. Heena Shaikh, Mr. S.D. Shetty and Mr. Rakesh Singh i/by.
M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.
                        CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. &
                               MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

                        DATE:            SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

P.C.

1. Not on board; taken on board on being mentioned by Mr. Setalvad, learned senior advocate for the respondent companies.

2. Referring to the order of disposal of these writ petitions passed yesterday (27th September, 2022), Mr. Setalvad submits that the document placed before this Court by Mr. Shetty, learned advocate for the petitioning Guild, which was marked "X" in terms of such order, is an internal communication and that the same was not at all intended to either reach the petitioning Guild or any of its members. Such

p-oswpl-30047-2022 (NOB)

internal communication could not have given rise to any claim by the occupants of the Company provided accommodation that they are permitted to continue to remain in occupation thereof till 28th October, 2022. He has, accordingly, prayed that the order passed yesterday to the extent it considers such document for restraining the respondent companies from proceeding against the occupants of the Company provided accommodation any time prior to 28th October, 2022, may be suitably modified.

3. Responding to our query, Mr. Shetty, submits that the document was made over to him by one of the members of the petitioning Guild. On perusal thereof, it seemed to him that a conscious decision had been taken by the respondent/AI Engineering Services Ltd. to not disturb the occupants of the Company provided accommodation till at least 28th October, 2022 and for such reason he had placed the same before us for our consideration.

4. We place on record that upon consideration of the document marked 'X', we assumed that there had been a suo motu decision to extend time to vacate the Company provided accommodation; hence, we recorded our expectation in paragraph 19 of the order passed yesterday that the respondent companies would abide by the same and that they would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law post 28th October, 2022 against those employees who fail to vacate the accommodation provided to them by Air India Limited.

5. Having heard Mr. Setalvad and Mr. Shetty, we are of the view that the document marked "X" does not give rise to any right in favour of the members of the petitioning Association,

p-oswpl-30047-2022 (NOB)

Union and Guild. Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the order dated 27th September, 2022 shall stand deleted.

6. At this stage, Mr. Shetty renews his prayer for an order protecting the occupation of the employees who are still continuing to reside at the Company provided accommodation. We see no reason to grant such prayer. The common judgment and order dated 25th August, 2022 disposing of Writ Petition (L) No.19001 of 2022, Writ Petition (L) No. 19171 of 2022 and Writ Petition (L) No.20338 of 2022 permitted the employees to remain in occupation till 24th September, 2022 having regard to the ensuing Ganesh Chaturthi festival. The festival is long over. The said order has now attained finality by reason of no appeal being carried therefrom by any party. Importantly, the permission to occupy the Company provided accommodation till 24 th September, 2022 was not made dependent on any factor, including reference to the Tribunal for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the Joint Action Committee of Air India Unions. The submission of the learned advocates appearing for the respondent companies in the first round of litigation that no occupant would be evicted without recourse to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 still holds good and would continue to be operative and, therefore, we are loath to accept the prayer of Mr. Shetty.

7. This order shall be read in continuation of the earlier order dated 27th September, 2022.

                       (MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)                      (CHIEF JUSTICE)

          Digitally
          signed by
          PRAVIN
PRAVIN    DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT    Date:
          2022.09.29
          20:50:24
          +0530