Air India Express Aircraft Engineers Association & Air India Aircraft Engineers Association v. Air India Ltd., Air India Engineering Services Ltd., Air India Charters Ltd., and Air India Express Aircraft Engineers Association

1 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 24560 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 AIR INDIA EXPRESS AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NO.01-30 OF 2012, T.C.32/115, ROOM NO.1, CHAITANYA TOURIST HOME, P.O. BEACH, NEAR ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, PIN-695007, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 MONTO NATH, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, AIR INDIA HANGER FACILITY, OPP. KSEB, CHAKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007, GENERAL SECRETARY, AIR INDIA EXPRESS AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION, TC.32/115, ROOM NO.1, CHAITANYA TOURIST HOME, P.O. BEACH, NEAR ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, PIN-695007.** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN** **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE AIR INDIA LTD.,**| |---|---| ||**AIRLINES HOUSE, 113, RAKABGANJ, GURUDWARA ROAD, NEW**| ||**DELHI-110001.**| |**2**|**THE AIR INDIA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD.,**| ||**AIRLINES HOUSE, 113, RAKABGANJ, GURUDWARA ROAD, NEW**| ||**DELHI-110001.**| |**3**|**THE AIR INDIA CHARTER LTD.,**| ||**AIR INDIA BUILDING, 21ST FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT,**| ||**MUMBAI, PIN-400021.**| 2 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ **4 AIR INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEER' ASSOCIATION, OLD AIRPORT, SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI-400029.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).3271/2019, THE COURT ON 20.5.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 3271 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **AIR INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION, OLD AIRPORT, SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI-400029, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.NARENDRA VIJAY DURVE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SHRI.SIDHARTH P.S. SRI.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 AIR INDIA LTD., AIRLINES HOUSE, 113, RAKABGANJ, GURUDWARA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY 2 THE AIR INDIA ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD., AIRLINES HOUSE, 113, RAKABGANJI, GURUDWARA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN-100001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. 3 THE AIR INDIA CHARTERS LTD., KNOWN AS AIR INDIA EXPRESS, AIR - INDIA EXPRESS BUILDING, GANDHI SQUARE, D.H.ROAD, KOCHI-682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. 4 AIR INDIA EXPRESS AIRCARAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NUMBER 01-30 OF 2012,** 4 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ **TC.32/115, ROOM NO.1, CHAITANYA TOURIST HOME, PO.BEACH, NEAR ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695007, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9.04.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).24560/2017, THE COURT ON 20.5.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 24560 of 2017 & W.P(C).No. 3271 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** These writ petitions relate to the service conditions of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers of the Air India Engineering Services Limited and the Air India Charters Limited. W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017 is filed by the Air India Express Aircraft Engineers Association and a member thereof challenging Exhibit P17 order and seeking a declaration that the petitioners are identically situated with the Engineers in Air India Services Limited and are entitled to all service benefits at par with them. 2. W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 is filed by the Air India Aircrafts Engineers Association, who represents licenced/approved permanent Aircraft Maintenance Engineers of the erstwhile Air India Limited, who are now employed under the 2[nd] respondent Air India Engineering Services Limited. They seek a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to complete the integration of services of the members of the petitioner Association with the Aircraft 6 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ Maintenance Engineers inducted from the Air India Charters Limited in a time bound manner and a further direction not to proceed with providing cross training to Aircraft Maintenance Engineers inducted from the 3[rd] respondent till the mapping and integration of services is completed. 3. Heard Sri.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017, Sri.K.Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019, Sri.Benny P. Thomas and Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Sri.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017, would submit that the petitioners who are Aircraft Maintenance Engineers inducted from the Air India Charters Limited are being discriminated against in the matter of emoluments and service benefits despite being identically placed with the engineers of the erstwhile Air India Limited. It is stated that even after the transfer of the petitioners to the AIESL in 2015, they have not been granted the pay and service benefits of the identically placed engineers from Air India Limited and the proposal for enhancement of pay as per Exhibit P2 was unilaterally withdrawn. It is stated that the pay and service benefits of Pilots of Air India Limited and the Air India Charters Limited had been brought at par. However, the same benefit has not been extended to Aircraft Maintenance 7 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ Engineers alone. It is stated that Exhibit P17 administrative order dated 10.7.2017 deciding to retain Aircraft Maintenance Engineers from Air India Ltd. and Air India Charters Limited in two separate verticals is completely unjustified and is detrimental to the interest of the petitioners. It is stated that the writ petition filed by the 4[th] respondent Association before the Bombay High Court challenging the integration had been withdrawn as per Exhibit P18 on the basis of Exhibit P17 order which is passed without hearing the petitioners and without considering their objections. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 would submit that the Air India and the Indian Airlines Limited were incorporated under the Air Corporations Act, 1953. The Air India Limited is the parent holding Company of the Air India Engineering Services Limited (AIESL) as well as the 3[rd] respondent Air India Charters Limited (AICL). In the year 2005, the parent company infused a large amount of capital into the Air India Charters Limited for acquisition of aircraft to operate low cost carriers under the brand name “Air India Express”. Air India Express had a fleet of 24 Aircrafts of Boeing 737-800 which are smaller in size. The AIESL had recruited Aircraft Maintenance Engineers on regular basis. The AICL had recruited Aircraft Maintenance Engineers on contract basis for five years on a much lower scale of pay from February, 2005 onwards. In the year 2015, the engineering wing of Air India Express 8 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ was transferred to the AIESL. There were only 62 engineers working on a contract basis under the AICL. By Exhibit P3 office order dated 26.12.2014, a decision was taken for transfer of AICL Engineering employees to the AIESL. Exhibit P3 provided that the service conditions of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers working under the AICL would be protected. 6. The Aircraft Maintenance Engineers originally working with the AIESL filed W.P(C).No.856 of 2016 before the High Court of Bombay challenging the induction of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers from the AICL and seeking protection of their seniority and terms of service. An interim order was issued by the Bombay High Court. The respondents had submitted an affidavit before the Bombay High Court stating that they will maintain separate verticals in respect of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers inducted from the AICL. It is stated that the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers inducted from the AICL were granted accelerated promotions and 30% cap to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer was removed in respect of them. The petitioner Association was forced to withdraw W.P(C).No.856 of 2016 filed before the High Court of Bombay as a condition for being granted their due remuneration and promotions. Exhibit P5 administrative order was thereafter issued removing the 30% cap on promotions to the post of Deputy Chief Aircraft Engineer in the case of the petitioners in W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 also. An undertaking of no objection to initial 9 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ cross training of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers inducted from AICL on ATR-72/A320/B777 family aircraft was also extracted from the petitioners. Relying on the interim order passed by this Court in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017, it is contended that what was agreed to was only initial cross training and that the cross training cannot be extended indefinitely and the decision on the integration of the employees is to be taken by the respondents at the earliest before any further cross training is provided. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017 would contend that W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 is not maintainable, since a writ petition with substantially the same pleadings had been filed before the High Court of Bombay which had been withdrawn by Exhibit P16. It is stated that even in case the petitioners in W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 have any grievances, they can approach only the High Court of Bombay and not this Court. It is contended that detailed representations have been preferred before the respondents pointing out the discrimination meted out to the members of the petitioner Association. It is stated that after an integration of the services, such further discrimination on the basis of the source of recruitment is not contemplated and the petitioners are entitled to equivalent remuneration, since they are identically placed as the employees of the AIESL. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in _**D.S.Nakara and**_ 10 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ _**others v. Union of India**_ [AIR 1983 SC 130] and _**State of Punjab and others v. Jagjit Singh and others**_ [(2017)1 SCC 148] to contend that the principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable even to temporary and contractual employees and that equally situated employees cannot be discriminated against only on the basis of the source of their recruitment. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 in WP(C).No.24560 of 2017. It is submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable, since Exhibit P16 administrative order is a part of Exhibit P18 order of the Bombay High Court and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that the petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy of raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the writ petition is bad for non inclusion of necessary parties. It is further contended that the claim for pay parity is completely misconceived, since the two groups of employees are not similarly placed. 9. By interim order dated 6.12.2017, the 2[nd] respondent had been directed to take a final decision on the question of integration of the employees of the AIESL with the AICL employees. The relevant portion of interim order dated 6.12.2017 reads as follows: _“In the meanwhile, there would be a direction to the second respondent to take a final decision on the question of integration as assured in Exhibit P5 letter within a period of two months and to take steps for providing cross training to the_ 11 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ _petitioners. The promotions made shall be subject to the orders to be passed on integration of the Engineering Personnel of AICL.”_ 10. Thereafter, an affidavit has been placed on record by the General Manager (Personnel) of the 2[nd] respondent stating that the 2[nd] respondent has decided not to proceed with the process of harmonising the pay and allowances of AICL employees with the employees of the AIESL. It is stated that the procedure for integration of the employees from the two sources is also not being carried out immediately and the employees will be maintained in two separate verticals for the time being. Regarding cross training, it is stated that, the 2[nd] respondent is in the process of working out the modalities for cross training and imparting of cross training to the first batch of trainees was done in January, 2018. It is stated that cross training will be provided as required by the AIESL taking note of the requirements of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers and the benefit to be accrued by their cross training. 11. It is contended that W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 is not maintainable before this Court and ought to have been filed before the High Court of Bombay if at all. On the question of parity of pay, the learned counsel appearing for the AIESL relies on a decision of the Apex Court in _**Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Thana Singh and others**_ [AIR 2019 SC 354] to contend that parity of pay scale is contemplated only between persons similarly situated and 12 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ not otherwise. It is stated that the burden of proof in establishing a right to pay parity is on the person claiming such right and in view of the specific contention that the employees of AICL are not similarly situated as the employees of AIESL who were permanently recruited, the petitioners in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017 have no right to claim any pay parity with the petitioners in W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 who have completely different conditions of service. The decision of the Apex Court in _**S.C.Chandra and others v. State of Jharkhand and others**_ [(2007)8 SCC 279] is also relied on to contend that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualifications, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply. It is further contended that fixation of pay scales is a purely executive function and courts cannot interfere with the same. It is further contended that the licensing and authorisation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers are governed by the DGCA guidelines and due procedure for integration is to be carried out by the Company taking note of its own requirements. It is contended that it is not for the petitioners to contend that they shall be integrated and given cross training for the said purpose, since it is a policy decision of the employer. 12. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 is a carefully phrased writ petition. No order is under challenge in the said writ petition. The essential contention 13 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ therein is only that the cross training provided to engineers inducted from the AICL should not continue indefinitely and that such cross training should await the integration of services of engineers from both the wings. The petitioners admit that they had approached the High Court of Bombay challenging the induction of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers from the AICL. After getting an interim order, the said writ petition came to be withdrawn on terms as spelled out in Exhibit P16 compromise petition. Initial cross training for engineers inducted from the AICL was specifically agreed to. The contention of the petitioners in W.P(C).No.3271 of 2019 is that what was provided for was only initial cross training and the continued cross training offered would jeopardise the chances of the members of the petitioner association who require due licences for promotion. It is stated that engineers from the AICL required only two licences for promotion which are accelerated in their case and the cross training would serve no purpose in their case. It is therefore contended that further cross training should await the complete integration of the employees from the two sources. 13. The petitioners in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017, on the other hand, seek a complete integration and pay parity with the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers under the AIESL. This is resisted by the AIESL on the ground that the members of the petitioner Association in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017 are not similarly situated. It is stated that 14 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ their recruitment is on completely different terms, i.e., on a purely contractual basis and their remuneration was only at par with the existing AICL Engineers. It is contended that the AIESL as well as its holding Company are facing severe financial crisis and that the question of integration, pay parity and cross training can be taken up only at the appropriate time taking note of the financial stringency as well as the economic viability of such processes. It is contended that at present, the Company does not intend to integrate engineers from the two sources and they will be maintained in separate verticals. It is stated that cross training will be granted on the basis of requirements of the Company. It is stated that the decision of the 2[nd] respondent with regard to integration and pay parity has been enumerated in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 6.12.2017. 14. On a consideration of the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioners in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017 to have established that they are identically situated as the Aircraft Maintenance Engineering working with the AIESL prior to their induction in 2015. The respondents have a definite case that the method of appointment and the conditions of service of the two groups of Engineers was completely distinct and separate as on the date of transfer. No material has been produced by the petitioners in W.P(C).No.24560 of 2017 to establish that they are identically situated 15 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ in all respects as the employees who were in service of the AIESL as on the date of the integration. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the prayer for pay parity cannot be granted by this Court in the absence of adequate material. 15. With regard to the integration also, the respondents have filed an affidavit before this Court stating that two groups of employees are being maintained as two separate verticals for the time being. It is needless to state that when an integration is being effected, the apprehensions and the objections of both groups of employees will have to be taken into account and an informed decision will have to be taken by the 2[nd] respondent Company in accordance with law. Cross training being a matter within the administrative capacity of the 2[nd] respondent, I am of the opinion that this Court would not be justified in interfering in such administrative matters or directing the cross training in respect of the members of the petitioner association. It is for the 2[nd] respondent Company to take an appropriate decision in this regard taking note of the requirements of the Company as well as the service prospects of its employees. This is a decision which is best left to the wisdom of the employer Company. In the above view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent Company to consider the questions of integration and cross training at the appropriate time when the finance of the Company permit such a consideration. It is made clear that 16 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ when the issue is being taken up and considered by the respondents, the contentions of both sets of Engineers shall be considered and an informed decision shall accordingly be taken by the Company. The question of pay parity will also be appropriately decided after due notice to all concerned. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** _vgs_ 17 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24560/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM WITH EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE 159TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AICL HELD IN MUMBAI ON 29/07/2006 CONTAINING THE DECISION ON ITEM NO.17 OF THE AGENDA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FOR PAY REVISION AND CAREER PROGRESSION SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 07/08/2014. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, DATED 21/08/2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO A STAFF. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/08/2015, ISSUED BY THE AIESL ALONG WITH THE MEMO OF PROCEEDINGS. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/11/2012, ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BY AIR INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE AIRCRAFTS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CHAT REVEALING THE BETTER SERVICE CONDITIONS GIVEN TO THE ENGINEERS OF ERSTWHILE AIR INDIA LTD.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/01/2017 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CEO OF AIESL SEEKING REINSTATEMENT OF 2011 BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CEO OF AIESL SEEKING AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF UTHE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/01/2017 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CEO OF AIEST SEEKING PARITY BETWEEN ERSTWHILE AICL AND AIESL PASSAGE POLICY.** 18 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/01/2017 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CEO OF AIESL FOR PROVIDING SENIORITY LIST.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/01/2017 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CEO OF AIESL SEEKING FORMULATION OF TRANSFER POLICY.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER REPRESENTING THEIR GRIEVANCES FOR VACANCY AT NAGPUR STATION.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/APRIL/2017 PREFERRED THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TERMS SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.REF. NO.E/16-8-3/389 DATED 10/07/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/07/2017 IN WPC NO.856/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/07/2017 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL SENT BY THE 2ND WRIT PETITION ON 05/07/2017, REQUESTING FOR A MEETING.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION WITH REF. NO.E1/02-08/2457 DATED 24/11/2011 ISSUED BY THEW CHIEF OF ENGINEERING AICL TO SBU HEAD (MRO) AND AIRFRAME OF AIR INDIA LIMITED.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE LIST OF SERVICE ENGINEERS (MECHANICS) PROMOTED TO AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS AFTER ACQUIRING THEIR 1ST LICENSE ON AI CHARTERS (B-737).** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ELEVENTH REPORT DATED 10/03/2016 OF THE COMMITTEE OF PETITIONS (SIXTEENTH LOK SABHA).** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES MEETING DATED** 19 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ ## **18/05/2015 BETWEEN AIAEA (WB) AND AIAEA(NB).** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 A** TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/04/2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2457/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. **EXHIBIT R1 B** TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/05/2013 IN SLP NO.14219/2013. **EXHIBIT R4 (1)** THE TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT R4 (10)** TRUE TYPED COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 22/12/2014 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (11)** TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION LETTER DATED 19/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (`12)** TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION LETTER DATED 19/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (13)** TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION LETTER DATED 19/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (14)** TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER LETTER DATED 21/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (15)** TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION LETTER DATED 21/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (16)** TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION LETTER DATED 21/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (17)** TRUE COPY OF WRIT PETITION WITHOUT EXHIBITS NO.856/2016 (WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2924/2015) FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BOMBAY. - **EXHIBIT R4 (17)A** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2924/2015 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BOMBAY DATED 20/10/2015. - **EXHIBIT R4 (18)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2924/2015 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BOMBAY DATED 18/01/2016. - **EXHIBIT R4 (19)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN THE MOTION NO.345/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.856/2016 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, BOMBAY DATED 29/04/2016. - **EXHIBIT R4 (2)** THE TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE PROMOTION POLICY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - **EXHIBIT R4 (20)** TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY OF THE R3 MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2924/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BOMBAY. 20 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ **EXHIBIT R4 (21)** TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE LAWYER OF R4 SENT TO THE LAWYER OF R3 DATED 28/11/2016. **EXHIBIT R4 (22)** TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 02/07/2015 BEFORE THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), KOCHI WITH READABLE TYPED COPY. **EXHIBIT R4 (23)** TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 04/08/2015 BEFORE THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), KOCHI WITH READABLE TYPED COPY. **EXHIBIT R4 (24)** TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY OF THE R2 HEREIN MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2924/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, BOMBAY. **EXHIBIT R4 (25)** TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NOTE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN R4 AND R1 AND R2 DATED 28/01/2015. **EXHIBIT R4 (26)** TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROTEST BY R4 ISSUED TO R1 AND R2 DATED 29/01/2015. **EXHIBIT R4 (27)** TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, TIME SPAN REQUIRED, NUMBER OF LICENSES REQUIRED AND MONTHLY EMOLUMENTS BETWEEN THE BILATERAL AGREEMENTS (FOLLOWED UNTIL 01/07/2012) AND UNILATERAL REGIME NOW BEING IMPLEMENTED BY THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 AND 2 POST THE JUSTICE DHARMADHIKARI COMMITTEE. **EXHIBIT R4 (28)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 01/04/2015 TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ANOMALY RECTIFICATION COMMITTEE. - **EXHIBIT R4 (29)** TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 18/03/2015 IN SLP NO.14124-25 OF 2014. - **EXHIBIT R4 (3)** TRUE COPY OF THE DATE WISE PROMOTION OF THE ENGINEERS IN THE 3RD RESPONDENT. - **EXHIBIT R4 (30)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 31/03/2015 IN SLP NO.14124-25 OF 2014. **EXHIBIT R4 (31)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 07/04/2015 TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ANOMALY RECTIFICATION COMMITTEE. - **EXHIBIT R4 (32)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 13/05/2015 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. - **EXHIBIT R4 (33)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 24/11/2015 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN. - **EXHIBIT R4 (34)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 09/03/2016 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. - **EXHIBIT R4 (35)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 26/05/2016 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN. **EXHIBIT R4 (36)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 28/04/2016 IN SLP NO.12575-12577 OF 21 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ 2014. **EXHIBIT R4 (37)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 10/05/2016 IN SLP IN 12575-12577 OF 2014. **EXHIBIT R4 (38)** TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL RECEIVED BY R4 FROM R2 DATED 31/05/2016. **EXHIBIT R4 (39)** TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY R4 DATED 02/06/2016 TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND ANOMALY RECTIFICATION COMMITTEE. **EXHIBIT R4 (4)** TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, TIME SPAN REQUIRED, NUMBER OF LICENSES REQUIRED AND MONTHLY EMOLUMENTS BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO.1, 2 AND 3. **EXHIBIT R4 (40)** TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 01/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT R4 (41)** TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST LETTER BY R4 DATED 06/03/2017 TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN. **EXHIBIT R4 (42)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN WRIT PETITION NBO.856/2018 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BOMVAY DATED 29/06/2017. **EXHIBIT R4 (43)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO.856/2016 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BOMBAY DATED 03/07/2017. **EXHIBIT R4 (44)** TRUE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2017 ISSUED TO MR. G.T. SHINDE, A MEMBER OF R4 UNION. **EXHIBIT R4 (45)** TRUE COPY OF THE WAGE SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2017 ISSUED TO MR. Y SURENDRANATH, A MEMBER OF R4 UNION. **EXHIBIT R4 (5)** TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/11/2012 OF R4. **EXHIBIT R4 (6)** TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/06/2014 OF R4. **EXHIBIT R4 (7)** TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 18/08/2014 BY R4. **EXHIBIT R4 (8)** TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION LETTER DATED 19/08/2015 ISSUED BY R3. **EXHIBIT R4 (9)** TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE TRANSFER LETTER DATED 26/12/2014 ISSUED BY R3. 22 _**WP(C).24560/17 & 3271/19**_ ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3271/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING DATE WISE PROMOTION OF AICL AME'S.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE CHART/STATEMENT SHOWING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, TIME SPAN REQUIRED, NUMBER OF LICENSES REQUIRED AND MONTHLY EMOLUMENTS.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER OF AIR INDIA CHARTERS LTD DATED 26.12.2014.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NOTE DATED 29.1.2015.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER DATED 10.7.2017.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2017 IN WPC.NO.24560 OF 2017.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.5.2018 PROVISIONALLY PROMOTING A MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION TO THE POST OF DY CHIEF AIRCRAFT ENGINEER.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4(A)** TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE 163RD MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF AIR INDIA CHARTERS LIMITED HELD ON 26/06/2007.