New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said Air India Limited after its disinvestment and having been taken over by a private corporate entity could not be treated as a state entity anymore, so it would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta declined to consider a plea by cabin crew members alleging stagnation in pay and non promotion of employees.
“The Air India Ltd, the erstwhile government run airline having been taken over by the private company Talace India Pvt Ltd, unquestionably, is not performing any public duty as it has taken over the government company for the purpose of commercial operations, plain and simple, and thus no writ petition is maintainable against AIL,” the bench said.
The court emphasised the disinvestment of the government company and its devolution into a private company would make it immune from being subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the litigant had entered the portals of the court while the employer was the government.
The appellants R S Madireddy approached the Bombay High Court which dismissed their plea claiming violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution as there was no effective appraisal in pay and promotion of the employees.
Air India, created as statutory body, on October 8, 2021, was taken over by Talace India Pvt Ltd after buying 100 per cent equity shares of Government of India.
The appellants said their right to seek remedy stood crystallised on filing of the plea and subsequent events can be looked at only to advance equity rather than to defeat it.
He said when a private employer steps into the shoes of a public employer, its actions are amenable to judicial review.
On behalf of AIL, senior advocate A M Singhvi said that High Court allowed the appellants to approach the appropriate forum.
The bench said, “The Union government of India having transferred its 100 per cent share to the company Talace India Pvt Ltd, ceased to have any administrative control or deep pervasive control over the private entity and hence, the company after its disinvestment could not have been treated to be a State anymore.
Thus, unquestionably, AIL after its disinvestment ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,” the bench said.
Once the AIL ceased to be covered by the definition of State, it could not have been subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the bench added.
The bench said Bombay High Court’s decision was the only just and permissible view.
Published 16 May 2024, 12:47 IST
