On October 8, 2021, the Centre introduced that it had accepted the bid of Talace India Pvt. Ltd. to buy its 100% shares in AIL.
| Photo Credit: Reuters
Air India Limited (AIL) ceased to be State or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution after its disinvestment and take over by the Tata Group in January 2022, and no case of alleged violation of basic proper would lie in opposition to it, the Supreme Court dominated on May 16.
The apex courtroom dismissed the appeals filed in opposition to a September 20, 2022 verdict of the Bombay High Court which had disposed of 4 writ petitions instituted by some workers of AIL over alleged stagnation in pay and non-promotion of workers and delay in fee of wage revision arrears, amongst others.
The prime courtroom famous that the petitions earlier than the excessive courtroom had claimed violation of Articles 14 (equality earlier than regulation), 16 (equality of alternative in issues of public employment), and 21 (safety of life and private liberty) of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta famous that the excessive courtroom had disposed of the pleas on the bottom of non-maintainability of the writ petitions owing to the privatisation of AIL.
It mentioned there was no dispute that the Government of India, having transferred its 100% share to Talace India Pvt. Ltd., ceased to have any administrative management or deep pervasive management over the non-public entity and therefore, “the company after its disinvestment could not have been treated to be a State anymore after having been taken over by the private company”. “Thus, unquestionably, the respondent no.3 (AIL) after its disinvestment ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India,” it mentioned.
The bench mentioned as soon as AIL ceased to be lined by the definition of State throughout the which means of Article 12 of the Constitution, it couldn’t have been subjected to the courtroom’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“The respondent no. 3 [AIL], the erstwhile government run airline having been taken over by the private company Talace India Pvt. Ltd., unquestionably, is not performing any public duty inasmuch as it has taken over the government company Air India Limited for the purpose of commercial operations, plain and simple, and thus no writ petition is maintainable against respondent no. 3 [AIL],” it mentioned.
The apex courtroom famous that AIL was a authorities entity on the date of submitting of the writ petitions earlier than the excessive courtroom and the pleas got here to be determined after a major delay, by which period, the corporate had been disinvested and brought over by a non-public participant.
It mentioned since AIL had been disinvested and assumed the character of a non-public entity not performing any public operate, the excessive courtroom couldn’t have exercised the extraordinary writ jurisdiction to challenge a writ to such non-public entity.
“The division bench [of the high court] has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been non-suited in the case. It is only that the appellants would have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy,” the bench mentioned in its verdict.
“By no stretch of imagination, the delay in disposal of the writ petitions could have been a ground to continue with and maintain the writ petitions because the forum, that is, the high court where the writ petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period,” it mentioned.
The bench mentioned the view taken by the excessive courtroom in denying equitable reduction to the appellants and relegating them to strategy the suitable discussion board for ventilating their grievances was the one simply and permissible view.
“In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by the division bench of the Bombay High Court in sustaining the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petitions preferred by the appellants and rejecting the same as being not maintainable,” the highest courtroom mentioned, whereas dismissing the appeals.
The bench famous that on October 8, 2021, the Centre introduced that it had accepted the bid of Talace India Pvt. Ltd. to buy its 100% shares in AIL.
It additional famous that on January 27, 2022, pursuant to the share buy settlement signed with Talace India Pvt. Ltd., 100% fairness shares of Government of India in AIL have been purchased by the non-public firm and AIL was privatised.
