National Aviation Co.Of India Ltd v. U.O.I.& Ors

SANJM KHANNA, J.' oGTOBER 12,2011 VKR - Ptut, o'6\1?h'4r^ Au&'* +*a@n'de W'P.(C)Nos.11385/2009,11389/2009,11390/2009.11391/2009,11397t2oog,114oz2oog&11404/2009Page23of23

I\/ l*-'oi* THE HrcH couRT oF DELH. AT NEW DELH. Date of order: 12 October,2011 + WRIT PETITION (ClVlL) NO' 11385/2009 AIR INDIO *O """ Petitioner Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms. Shreya S. Dabas & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates. VETSUS ? uNloN oF INDIA ""' ResPondent +, Iitlbl: Mr' Ravinder Asarwal' cGSC Mr. Atul Bandhu & Mr. Varun Baweja' Advocates for respondent workman' wRlT PETITION (ClVlL) NO. 11389/200e AIR INDIA LIMITED """ Petitioner Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms' Shreya S. Dabas & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates. VETSUS S, UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents jf Through Mr' Ravinder Aganrual' CGSC for UOl. Mr. Govind NaraYan, Advocate for respondent No.2. wRlr PETITION (GlVlL) NO. 11390/2009 AIR INDIA LIMITED """ Petitioner Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms'Shreya S. Dabas & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates. VETSUS w.p. (c) Nos. 1 1 3g5/2009, 1 1 389/2009, 1 1 390/2009, 1 1 391/2009, 1 1 397/2009, 114ozt2oog & 1 1 404/2009 Pase 1 of 23 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. r> t. ",rr UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Ravinder Aganrual, CGSC for UOl. Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate for respondent No.2. wRlr PETITION (ClVlL) NO. 11391/2009 AIR INDIA LIMITED """ Petitioner Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms' Shreya S. Dabas & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates. VETSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ""' Respondents Through Mr. Ravinder Aganrual, CGSC for UOl. Mr. Govind NaraYan, Advocate for respondent No.2. wRlT PETITION (ClVlL) NO' 11397/2009 AIR INDIA LIMITED """ Petitioner Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms. Shreya r. S. Dabas & Ms' Bhavna Dhami, -r") Advocates' VETSUS i uNloN oF INDIA AND ORS. ....' Respondents Through Mr. Ravinder Aganrual, CGSC for UOl. Mr. Atul Bandhu & Mr. Varun Baweja, Advocates for respondent workman' wRlT PETITION (ClVlL) NO. 11402/2009 AIR INDIA LIMITED ...." Petitioner w.P.(c)Nos.11385/2009,11389/2009,11390/2009,11391/2009,11397/2009,114021200s&114O4|2OO9Pase2of23 r(1 A't Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms.Shreya S. Dabas & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates. Mr. A.K. Trivedi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. UNION OF INDIA VETSUS ..... ResPondent Through Mr. Ravinder Aganrual, CGSC for UOl. wRlT PETITIoN (GlvlL) NO. 11404/2009 AIR INDIA LIMITED """ Petitioner Through Ms. Ratna Dhingra, Ms'Shreya S. Dabas & Ms. Bhavna Dhami, Advocates. VETSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS' ""' Respondents Through Mr. Ravinder Aganrual, CGSC for UOl. Mr. Atul Bandhu & Mr. Varun Baweja, Advocates for respondent workman' GORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA l.WhetherReportersof|oca|papersmaybeal|owedtoseethejudgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 5. Wh"tt"'"t the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? SANJIV KHANNA. J.: These seven writ petitions have been filed by National Aviation company of lndia Limited, now known as Air India ' Limited, challenging different orders passed by the Presiding _Jf ? W.P.(C)Nos.11385/2009,11389/2009,11390/2009,11391/2009,11397/2009,11402!2oog&114o4l2oo9Page3of23 * I fs Officer, Central Government, lndustrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, for short). By the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has been directed to pay the respondent employees arrears towards wages as per the agreement dated 5th May, 1996 entered into between the petitioner and the Air lndia Employees Guild' lt is accepted by the counsel for the parties that the reasoning given by the Industrial Adjudicator in all orders is identical and, therefore, these writ petitions can be disposed by a common order. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, Writ Petition (Civil) No' 11391 l2OOg titled National Aviation company of India Limited, now known as Air lndia Limited, Versus Union of lndia and Raj Kumar is treated as the lead case. 2. The private respondents had filed applications under section 33-C(2) of the Act before the Industrial