C.B. Saini & Ors. vs Indian Airlines & Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 344 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri,J.

1. Petitioners were originally appointed as Trainee Pilots by Vayudoot.There respective dates of appointments are as under:

          Petitioner No.1     16.05.1988
     Petitioner No.2     19.09.1989
     Petitioner No.3     09.07.1988
     Petitioner No.4     18.09.1989
 

2. While the petitioners were still Trainee Pilots, they made representations to Vayudoot Ltd. for giving them Co-Pilot Grade and granting them regular scale of pay. In the meantime, on 24.5.1994 Government of India issued orders to absorb the Vayudoot employees into various organisations under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were absorbed in Indian Airlines and were given appointment letters. One such appointment letter issued to Petitioner No.3 is dated 30.11.95 which has been enclosed with the writ petition. It may be observed at this stage that with Vayudoot Ltd., petitioners were imparted training on Dernier 228 and the training had not been completed. After absorption of the petitioners with Indian Airlines, the petitioners requested for completion of their training and also to give them regular grade or scale. However, inspite of number of representations made to various authorities, the respondents did not accede to their request. On the other hand Pilots from Vayudoot Agro Division were allowed to complete this training. Aggrieved against that action, petitioners made representation dated 24.7.97. Thereafter respondents decided to deploy the Pilots including the petitioners on DO 228 Aircraft (endorsement course) at CTE, Hyderabad w.e.f. 20.10.97 and directed the petitioners to inform their willingness about the same. Petitioners accepted the said offer and expressed their willingness. However, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents adopted pick and choose policy and decided to exclude these petitioners on the ground that they were not considered for this Batch. Under these circumstances, present writ petition was filed levelling allegations that action of the respondents is discriminatory and arbitrary and seeking a direction that respondents should permit the petitioners to complete their training.

3. Challenging the action of the respondents, Mr. M.P. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the terms of appointment letters issued to these petitioners by Vayudoot Ltd. all the four petitioners were specifically appointed for Dernier 228 Aircraft. The respondents did not permit the petitioners to complete their training on the pretext of non-availability of Aircrafts. The petitioners continued on nominal allowance for so many years and they represented several times to the respondents to complete their training. Even though the petitioners had cleared successfully part of the training the respondents did not allow them to complete the training on the ground that a number of Drnier aircraft were grounded (vide letter dated 10.12.90 issued by the Training Co-ordinator). Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.12.90 it was stated that all flying training is held in abeyance. Even as per the letter of the respondent dated 21/6/91, the petitioner's training could not be undertaken due to fuel crisis and financial constraints. Similarly vide letter dated 23/4/92, the respondents also said that the training of the petitioners could not be undertaken due to fuel crisis and financial constraints. The respondents did not complete the training of the petitioners and the petitioners represented several times for the completion of their training and also for granting the post and scale of co-pilot. On 6/10/93, the respondents raised the stipend of the petitioners from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3,500/- wherein the respondents have admitted the completion of the training has been unduly delayed. Accordingly, it was submitted that it was the duty of respondent Vayudoot to complete the training of the petitioners and give the employment to the petitioners on regular basis for which promise was given by the respondents and even bond taken from the petitioners. It was further submitted that even Indian Airlines discriminated qua the petitioners by only leaving out the four petitioners from the training and giving the training to others and even those who were juniors to the petitioners. Even if Drnier Aircrafts were not available, others and juniors were given training on Avro Aircrafts but petitioners were denied the same. This action of the respondents was violative of Principles of Legitimate Expectation especially since the petitioners had been made to wait for the training and endorsement for almost 9 years and as the petitioners have already undergone the training on Drnier 228 Air-craft and have the certificates of training on such Aircrafts whereas the colleagues who are being preferred do not have the said training. It was further submitted that on the one hand the petitioners who were already available with the respondents were denied the training and opportunity of flying, on the other hand respondents were engaging Pilots on contract basis which was clearly uncalled for action of the respondents. The respondents were bound by the Principles of Promissory Estoppel to complete the training of the petitioners and absorb them in service. In support of this proposition, reliance was also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Suryanarayan Yadav and others Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others reported in 1985 (Suppl.) SCR 605.

4. The respondents on the other hand in their counter-affidavit have refuted the various allegations made by the petitioners. It has been submitted that petitioners 1 and 3 joined Vayudoot as Operation Assistants and on acquiring the Commercial Pilot Licence later they were appointed as Trainee Pilots as internal candidates against the internal vacancies. Petitioner No. 2 joined Vayudoot against notified vacancies of Trainee Pilot w.e.f. 20.9.89. Petitioner No. 4 Manoj Kumar Dutta on the other hand was issued an appointment letter erroneously against another selected candidate whose name was also Manoj Kumar. Petitioner No. 4, namely, Manoj Kumar Dutta was accordingly informed later on that the appointment letter issued to him stands withdrawn. He contested the cancellation by filing writ petition and during the pendency of that writ petition he and Vayudoot arrived at an out of court settlement as per which he was offered the post of Operation Assistant with retrospect date i.e. 18.9.89. As per that MOU petitioner No. 4 was to be sent for training in the next Batch of Trainee Pilot. Since petitioners 1 to 3 were appointed as Trainee Pilots, they were paid stipend which was revised from time to time. On the other hand, petitioner No.4 was appointed as Operation Assistant and was paid the salary of regular grade of Operation Assistant till the absorption of employees of Vayudoot Ltd. in Indian Airlines. The allegations of discrimination etc. are denied and on the other hand it is stated that during training to the petitioners the instructors reported that performance of the petitioners was not found satisfactory and was extremely poor. Para-7 of the counter-affidavit which highlights this aspect is reproduced below:

7. "I submit that as reported by instructors who were imparting training to the petitioners the performance of the petitioners was not found satisfactory being extremely poor in flying and quite uncoordinated in actions. I submit that the petitioners were given the additional chances to improve their flying however the petitioners failed to improve their performance. In this regard I carve leave of this court to refer and rely upon letters dated 24.7.89, 12.1.90, 28.11.90/3.12.90. The copy of letters are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A,B,&C respectively. I submit that as the petitioners did not pass their flying training they had to be kept as Trainee Pilots. It is pertinent to submit that the instructors conducting their training strongly recommended to terminate their training as way back in 1989-90. However, the management intended to give them a final chance to improve their performance as is clear from letter dated 12.7.90. A copy of the said letter is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure D. It is submitted that as the level of flight operations fell considerably in late 1990, the company started incurring huge losses as a result of which many of its aircrafts were grounded thus reducing the aircraft availability. In the circumstances, even the regular Pilots could not be utilised. In the light of the fact that ample opportunities were given to the petitioners for improving their performance there is no arbitrariness in not considering the petitioners for the said post".

8. "It is submitted that similarly placed Trainee Pilots in the same Batch as the petitioners who completed their training successfully were placed in the regular cadre/grade whereas the petitioners did not clear their examination and complete their flying training, therefore, they have no claim for regular grade of Co-Pilot".

xxxxxxxx

18. "It is submitted that before the absorption of Vayudoot employees took place on 1.12.94, the petitioners, who were provided an opportunity to clear their flying training, did not perform well. The instructors who were imparting flying training recommended that their performance was so bad that it is futile to continue them as Trainee Pilots. Despite such a recommendation, the management with full awareness that the clearance of a pilot involved tremendous responsibility on the Instructor, since those who are not suitable for it could endanger the life of travelling passengers, the management intended to give them one more chance by changing the Instructors. However, since the flying operation of Vayudoot started dwindling in the late 1990's and nearly came to standstill in 1991, it was not possible to give the petitioners another chance of flying training. Nevertheless due to the frequent representations which the petitioners were making to the management at the time of absorption they were absorbed as Trainee Pilots".

5. It is further stated that regular grade of co-pilot can be offered to trainee pilot only after the successful completion of the training and acquiring P-2 endorsement from DGCA and since the petitioners had failed to acquire the said endorsement, they could not be considered for co-pilot grade. It is also submitted that the stand of the petitioners comparing their cases with Trainee's Helpers, Trainee's Loaders and some of Trainee Office Assistants having different terms of appointment is misconceived. Insofar training of the petitioners is concerned, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioners were given the training earlier by Vayudoot Ltd. on DO 228 aircraft and as there was no likelihood of utilisation of these trainee pilots, the question of giving them further training did not arise. It was submitted that even 14 regular pilots are awaiting conversion on DO 228 aircraft who are senior to the petitioners and in these circumstances the petitioners have been offered an alternate job as Operation Assistant in a regular cadre with the benefit of salary / perks as applicable to the cadre. Justifying the action of utilising the services of contractual pilot, counter-affidavit states as under :

"I state that on one hand DO-228 aircraft operations are on a low level and on the other Short Haul Operations Department has 14 regular Pilots who are yet to be converted on DO-228 Aircraft and there is a scarcity of Pilots for operating DO-228 Aircraft only four Pilots are available for DO-228 Operations. Presently, Short Haul Operations Department is operating DO-228 Aircraft in Eastern and Southern Region. This limited operation has to be continued for social/welfare objectives. To tide over the situation of scarcity of regular Pilots pending the conversion of 14 Pilots, the Management had no option but to utilise the services of contractual Pilots who have endorsement P-1 and P-2 (Pilot in Command and Co-Pilot) from DGCA, whereas the Petitioners are still Trainee Pilots and do not possess any endorsement whatsoever on DO-228 Aircraft hence the Management is unable to utilise and consider the services of the Petitioner".

6. The explanation offered by the respondents is complete answer to the various contentions raised by the petitioners. I am convinced with the stand taken by the respondents. There is no question of any Promissory Estoppel for absorbing the petitioners. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Suryanarayan Yadav (Supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. That was a case where the Bihar State Electricity Board had advertised that selection of Electrical Engineers would be made under "Employment Promotion Programme". Selection was made in due course and a group of Apprentice Engineers also called Trainee Engineers came to serve under the Board. These selected Engineers completed their training for the purpose of obtaining the degree in Engineering. Although initially the Board had indicated that the training does not guarantee any employment but later on it resolved that 200 vacant posts of Junior Engineers would be filled on the basis of chain system and the existing trainees would be continued as trainees on existing stipends. The Supreme Court noticed the assurance given by the Board from time to time for absorption of these trainees and relying on the representations and promises made by the Board the trainees had altered their position to their prejudice detriment and it was in these circumstances that Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was applied. It is not the situation in the present case as noted above. Neither petitioners have completed the training nor there was any such assurance given for absorption of these petitioners on completion of their training. On the contrary the situation which prevails is that even the regular pilots for want of sufficient flight operations of DO 228 are awaiting conversion. The performance of the petitioners was not found satisfactory during the training. Moreover, if training could not be completed due to fall in level of flight operations or reduction in the aircrafts availability, the respondents cannot be blamed for that. Moreover, the petitioners were engaged as trainee pilots with Vayudoot Ltd. If their services are taken over by the Indian Airlines after the merger took place and because of non-availability of flight operation of DO-228 even regular pilots are awaiting conversion, the offer of the Indian Airlines to these petitioners to alternate job appears to be a bonafide and justified. The petitioners cannot be granted the relief claimed by them in this petition. It would be appropriate for them to avail the offer of alternate job. With these observations, the writ petition, which is devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed.