Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Manjusha A. Deshpande, Bombay High Court, Air India
Air India Due To Privatization Not Discharging Public Duty; Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
|The Bombay High Court said that Air India is not discharging any public function and its status is that of a private company, established with sole commercial object of making profit.
The Bombay High Court held that due to privatization, Air India is not discharging any public duty and hence, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
The Court held thus in Writ Petitions filed by the employees of Air India seeking distinct reliefs.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Manjusha A. Deshpande observed, “… we hold that all the three writ petitions, although maintainable on the dates on which they were instituted, have ceased to be maintainable, due to privatization of AIL, which is not discharging any public duty. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petitions along with pending Interim Applications, if any, stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy in accordance with law. If the petitioners take recourse to such remedy, the time consumed in pursuing the present writ petition, shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation, if any question of limitation arises.”
The Bench said that Air India is not discharging any public function and its status is that of a private company, established with sole commercial object of making profit.
Advocate Ashok D. Shetty appeared for the Petitioners while Advocate Aditya Mehta appeared for the Respondents.
Case Background
In all the three Writ Petitions, the employer of the Petitioners was Air India Limited, but the facts as well as reliefs claimed by them were distinct from one another. Hence, considering that the employer is common and maintainability of Writ Petition itself was under issue, the Petitions were heard together by the Court. When the Writ Petitions were listed before the Court in June 2024, the Court observed that “the petitioners are the employees of the respondent Air India Limited (AIL).
During the pendency of Writ Petitions, the status of Respondent employer, undergone a change, as such the Respondent-AIL is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The counsel for the Petitioner stated that, even in the changed circumstances the Petition can still be prosecuted and sought time to prepare compilation of decisions and address the Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “It is quite natural and reasonable that the persons who are likely to be affected by the decisions of the Court, would think that the previous decisions of the Court rendered on identical facts shall be adhered to. The binding nature of a decision of the Court is an issue that also pertains to judicial discipline and propriety and requires that the decision of a co-ordinate Bench is followed by the other Courts of co-equal strength and are not lightly to be disregarded.”
The Court reiterated that judicial indiscipline is invaluable and inviolable rule to be followed by the Judges.
“We may also refer to “Hari Singh v. State of Haryana” wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a judicial system the Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction must have consistent opinions on identical set of facts or on a question of law.” The decision of this Court in “R.S. Kotyswara Rao” (supra) which stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on us and we do not find any reason to record our disagreement with the said judgment”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- M. Yogeshwar Raj v. Air India Limited (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:14229-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ashok D. Shetty, Shashikant Patil, Rahul P. Shetty, and Bushra Moughal.
Respondents: Advocates Aditya Mehta, Lancy D’souza, Deepika Agarwal, V.M. Parkar, Rakesh Singh, and Heena Shaikh.