Mandamus Lies Against Privatized Entities to Review Adjudicatory Awards; Compensation for Illegal Retrenchment Must Be Proportionate to Service Tenure.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Respondent (Air India), having been taken over by a private corporate entity, remains subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

The court held

The Court held that the writs are maintainable as they challenge a Tribunal award.

It also directed

It affirmed that the terminations were illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F.

The Court refused reinstatement but modified the relief by significantly enhancing the compensation: ₹1,25,000 for one year of service, ₹2,50,000 for two years, and ₹3,75,000 for three years or more.

The impugned CGIT awards were partly modified to reflect these enhanced amounts.

01Facts

The Petitioners were engaged as casual/daily-rated workers (drivers, peons, etc.) by Indian Airlines between 1993 and 1998.

p. 5

They were part of a "1995 Panel" created following interim directions from the High Court in previous litigation.

p. 7

The Management terminated their services between 1997 and 1998, claiming such actions were in compliance with a subsequent High Court judgment dated 09.05.1997, which prioritized a "1990 Select List" over others.

p. 8, 10

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) found that the terminations violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the workmen had completed 240 days of service.

p. 10

However, the CGIT denied reinstatement due to the casual nature of the work and instead awarded nominal compensation ranging from ₹25,000 to ₹55,000.

pp. 10-11

The workmen filed these writs seeking reinstatement. During pendency, Air India was privatized (2022), leading the Respondent to challenge the maintainability of the writs.

p. 24

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Respondent (Air India), having been taken over by a private corporate entity, remains subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

p. 23 / para. 51

ii.2. Whether the termination of services was legally justified as being in pursuance of prior Court orders.

p. 31 / para. 78

iii.3. Whether the award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement by the CGIT was appropriate and legally sound.

p. 23 / para. 51

03Law Applied

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution regarding the High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate tribunals.

p. 28

It relied on Hindustan Lever Ltd v. B.N. Dongre to establish that Tribunal awards are subject to judicial review when no statutory appeal exists.

p. 28

Regarding labor rights, the Court applied Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates notice and compensation as conditions precedent for retrenching a workman with one year of continuous service.

p. 33

It further integrated the principles from Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board regarding the substitution of reinstatement with compensation for daily wagers.

p. 37

The Court applied the precedent Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. (2025), which requires compensation to be proportional to the years of service rather than arbitrary.

p. 40

Provisions in the judgment · 7

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2Section 17Section 17-ASection 25Section 25-FSection 25-G

Industries (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 1984 Section 49

04Reasoning

On maintainability, the Court distinguished R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India, noting that while a private entity isn't usually amenable to Article 226 for service disputes, a High Court maintains supervisory jurisdiction over the adjudicatory process of a Tribunal award regardless of the employer's current status.

pp. 26-27, 29

On merits, the Court rejected the Management’s defense that the terminations were court-mandated, noting a suspicious year-long delay between the 1997 judgment and the 1998 terminations.

p. 31

The Court held that Section 25-F is absolute; once 240 days of service are completed, the source of engagement (even if via court order) is irrelevant to statutory protection.

pp. 34-35

However, the Court agreed with the CGIT that reinstatement was impractical after 30 years for casual workers.

p. 38

Relying on Amit Kumar Dubey, the Court found the CGIT’s original compensation (e.g., ₹40,000 for 2 years) to be inadequate and nominal, necessitating a pro-rata enhancement to ensure proportionality to the duration of service.

p. 40