Award Accepted Subject to Leaving Questions of Law Open Without Precedential Value

The Respondents were terminated from their services at Lufthansa German Airlines in 1999

They challenged the termination before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Delhi, which passed an award on 31.12.2012 holding the termination illegal.

Instead of reinstatement, the CGIT granted compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- each to the Respondents

The Appellant (Lufthansa) challenged this award via W.P.(C) No. 3256/2013, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 17.11.2024

During the pendency of the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), Respondent No. 1 passed away and was substituted by his legal representatives

On 30.04.2026, the court proposed a settlement to resolve the decade-old dispute

1. Whether employees serving as Supervisors with a salary between Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 28,000/- qualify as "workmen" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Whether the Appellant is liable to pay the award amount and pending statutory dues (PF, Gratuity, etc.) despite the legal challenge to the status of the employees

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines the term "workman" and excludes those employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding a specific threshold or exercising managerial functions

Principles of judicial compromise and the doctrine of non-precedent, ensuring that a settlement-based disposal of an appeal does not establish a binding legal rule for future cases

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the "workman" status. Instead, it facilitated a consensus-based resolution due to the long duration of the litigation (since 1999) and the death of Respondent No. 1

The Appellant agreed to comply with the CGIT award on the condition that the specific question of law regarding the definition of "workman" for supervisors with high salaries remains open for future determination

The Court analyzed the practicalities of the unpaid dues, noting that Respondent No. 2 held uncashed cheques from 1999 for salary and allowances, and Respondent No. 1 was owed PF and Gratuity

Applying the consent of both parties, the Court directed the re-issuance of cheques and the payment of the principle compensation with interest to ensure equity while preserving the Appellant's right to contest the legal issue in other proceedings

(i) Respondent No. 2 shall return old cheques to the Appellant for fresh issuance; (ii) the Appellant must pay Rs. 10,00,000/- each to the LRs of Respondent No. 1 and to Respondent No. 2, with 9% interest p.a. from the date the award became payable; and (iii) pending PF and Gratuity for Respondent No. 1 must be settled within six months.

Crucially, the Court held that the question of law regarding Section 2(s) is left open and the CGIT award and this judgment shall not be treated as a precedent