Bombay HC directs Spice Jet to rehire employees retrenched after Dec 2021 citing lack of Covid-19 pandemic

The tribunal had directed the Airline and its Station Manager at Mumbai Airport to provide employment to 463 workers as per terms and conditions that prevailed as on December 31, 2021 by renewing contracts with them.

The CGIT had said that the Spice Jet management did not adhere to its undertaking to the Tribunal that it would not terminate the services of its employees, therefore the terminated employees were entitled to interim relief on account of non-renewal of the contract.

SpiceJet then approached the High Court stating that the decision to terminate services was taken due to Covid-19 pandemic as frequency of flights operated per day from Mumbai Airport had come down to 44 from 144. Therefore, there was no work available for concerned employees who were primarily engaged in ground handling work and the same was entrusted to an agency authorised by Airport Authority of India (AAI).

Advocates Kiran Bapat, Mahesh Shukla and Niraj Prajapati representing the petitioner told the bench that the concerned employees were retrenched as per the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, 1947 and as their contracts had expired, the company had decided to not renew their contracts. The Airline submitted that the employees were appointed on a fixed term contract basis, therefore it was not a case of termination of their contracts.

However, senior advocate Sanjay Singhvi representing respondent All India Spice Jet Staff and Employees Association, a trade Union said that the submitted that the Airline violated the Tribunal’s order to maintain status quo till January 4, 2022 as the aggrieved employees were terminated on December 31, 2021.

After perusing submissions, the bench observed, “There is material on record to indicate that the employees were working for a number of years. Prima facie the claim of the petitioners that the employees were covered by exclusion clause of the ID Act, 1947 does not seem sustainable. The termination of their employment while the reference awaited adjudication before the Tribunal was clearly to the prejudice of the employees.”

The Airline claimed that 120 employees had resigned and only 371 employees were to be reinstated. The Trade Union stated that only 74 employees had resigned.

“Thus, the number of employees who would turn up in the event the petitioners offer employment is in the arena of uncertainty,” the bench noted.

The Court ordered said out of the rest of 371 employees, who have yet not resigned, to inform by May 31 to the Airline that they are willing to work with the company. The Court also directed the Airline to provide by June 30 work to such employees and pay wages and benefits as per the terms and conditions of employment existing on December 31, 2022.

The Court directed the Tribunal to decide on the reference made to it in the January 10, 2022 decision on its own merit and disposed of the plea.