The Delhi High Court has held that pilots employed by King Airways fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and upheld awards directing payment of unpaid salaries, incentives for extra flying hours and other dues. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed appeals filed by King Airways challenging orders of the Industrial Tribunal and a Single Judge of the High Court, which had ruled in favour of the pilots.
The case arose from claims filed by pilots alleging non-payment of salary and incentives by the airline. The Industrial Tribunal had allowed their claims in 2009, holding that the pilots were “workmen” and entitled to relief under the ID Act. These awards were upheld by a Single Judge Bench of the High Court in 2013. The King Airways challenged the decisions through Letters Patent Appeals, contending that pilots, particularly those designated as Pilot-in-Command, discharged supervisory and managerial functions and drew wages above the statutory threshold, thereby falling outside the definition of “workman”.
The airline relied on the appointment letters, salary structure, operational manuals and Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, to argue that pilots exercised supervisory control over crew members and were therefore excluded under Section 2(s)(iv) of the ID Act. It was also argued that in a connected matter, a Single Judge had remanded a similar dispute for fresh adjudication on the question of whether a pilot was a workman, and the same approach ought to be followed in the present cases.
Rejecting these submissions, the Division Bench held that the determination of whether an employee is a workman depends on the predominant nature of duties performed, and not on designation, salary, or incidental supervisory functions. The Court observed that a pilot’s primary and essential function is to fly the aircraft, which is a highly skilled and technical task, and any supervisory role attributed to a Pilot-in-Command during flight operations is merely incidental and does not amount to supervisory or managerial control in the industrial sense. The Bench noted that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate that pilots exercised actual administrative or supervisory authority over crew members.
The Court further held that statutory expressions used in the Aircraft Rules cannot be mechanically imported into labour law, and that the term “supervise” in Rule 141 is meant to ensure flight safety rather than to confer managerial status. It also clarified that salary drawn by an employee becomes relevant only when supervisory functions are established, and cannot, by itself, exclude a person from the definition of workman. Referring to Bangalore Water Supply v. A. Rajappa, S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co., 1978 SCC OnLine 65, and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Court affirmed that pilots perform technical and operational work squarely covered by Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
On the issue of back wages, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, noting that the termination and withholding of dues were illegal and that the principles governing the grant of back wages had been correctly applied. While affirming the judgments in three appeals filed by the airline, the Bench set aside a contrary Single Judge order in a connected appeal, which had remanded the issue of workman status for fresh consideration, holding that the issue had already been conclusively determined.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the pilots’ appeal in the connected matter and affirmed their entitlement to unpaid salary and related dues.
Apperantaces
Appellants- Mr. Amit Rawal, Mr. Pradeep Bakshi, Senior Advocates with Ms. Rishika, Advocate.
Respondents- Mr. Shohit Chaudhry, Advocate.
