The Bombay High Court recently dismissed three petitions filed by Air India Employees’ Unions challenging the airline’s decision to evict them from Mumbai staff quarters following privatisation.
Employees of Air India are facing eviction from their assigned housing, and they have requested that a reference be made for industrial adjudication through their unions. The Central Government refused to meet that demand.
Acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne stated on Monday that monetizing Air India Ltd’s lands and properties was one of the essential terms of the airline’s disinvestment process. The bench also stated that accommodation was not provided to employees as a right or as a condition of employment.
The bench observed that only 410 of the 3000 flats were still occupied. 238 out of the 410 employees have already submitted commitments to vacate their flats. As a result, the petitions appear to be filed to protect the interests of only 142 employees who have yet to demonstrate a willingness to vacate the accommodations, according to the bench.
“One of the key terms of the disinvestment process is the monetization of Air India Ltd’s lands and properties. If such a small number of employees continue to occupy the accommodations, Air India Asset Holding Company Limited will be unable to monetize the land in order to reduce the burden of debt imposed by AIL,” stated the bench.
The unions had submitted that housing is an essential part of working for the airlines. Air India, on the other hand, claimed that the allottees are merely licensees in terms of accommodations, and that housing is not provided to them as a condition of employment.
The court referred to Air India’s housing allotment rules, noting that accommodations are allotted to employees by drawing a list of optees as and when available. It is not true that every employee is entitled to accommodation as a matter of right,” the bench stated.
The 56-page order also stated that the unions had not submitted any evidence to show that the provision of ‘housing’ is one of the terms of employment. “On the contrary, a review of the Housing Rules, Leave and License Agreement, and order of appointment reveals that ‘housing’ does not appear to be a term of employment,” the bench stated. “No right is created in favour of the employee to seek accommodation,” the order added.
However, the bench stayed its own order for two weeks so that the Unions could file an appeal before the Supreme Court.
