Synopsis

A batch of casual workers engaged by Indian Airlines (later Air India) between 1993-1998 had their services terminated without notice or compensation. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) held the termination illegal for violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but instead of reinstatement, awarded monetary compensation ranging from Rs.25,000 to Rs.55,000. The workers filed writ petitions seeking reinstatement. A preliminary objection was raised that Air India, having been privatized in 2022, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court held that while a private entity may not be directly subject to Article 226, the writ petition challenging an industrial award is maintainable because the court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over the tribunal’s award. On merits, the court upheld the finding of illegal termination but modified the compensation significantly – raising it to Rs.1,25,000 for one year of service, Rs.2,50,000 for two years, and Rs.3,75,000 for three years or more – applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. (2025).

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shail Jain (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 8th May, 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 377/2013 and connected matters (2026:DHC:4055)

Core Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25-F (conditions precedent to retrenchment), Section 25-B (continuous service), Section 17(2) (finality of awards); Constitution of India – Articles 226 & 227 (writ jurisdiction)

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi

W.p.(c) 377/2013 and connected matters (w.p.(c) 877/2013, 879/2013, 748/2013)

Sauraj singh (petitioner in w.p.(c) 377/2013) vs. M/s indian airlines ltd. and anr. (respondents) and workmen represented by delhi offices and establishment employees union through its president vs. management of air india (formerly known as indian airlines ltd.) (connected petitions)

Coram: hon’ble ms. justice shail jain

Date of judgment: 8th may, 2026

Reportable: yes (citation 2026:dhc:4055)

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Industrial disputes act, 1947 – section 25-f (conditions precedent to retrenchment – notice, compensation, government intimation), section 25-b (continuous service – 240 days in a calendar year), section 2(oo) (definition of retrenchment), section 17(2) (finality of awards, no civil suit lies)

Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ jurisdiction of high courts), article 227 (power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Articles 226/227 challenging an industrial award passed against a private entity (Air India) after its privatization. Whether the CGIT was correct in granting compensation instead of reinstatement to casual workers whose termination was held illegal under Section 25-F. What is the appropriate quantum of compensation in such cases.

Key legal principles applied:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.