The dispute on whether Air India pilots should be considered ‘workmen’ by definitions laid down or part of the managerial staff, continues to simmer. But the pilots have no case to keep regularly seeking salary hikes
Hundreds of air travellers across the country were stranded for hours on August 21, 2015, since about a dozen Air India flights failed to take off on time after several senior pilots called in sick protesting a Government decision excluding pilots from the purview of ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the previous day, Deepa Mahajan, Executive Director (P&IR), issued an order which said: “The Ministry of labour & Employment has, after evaluation in light of the duties and responsibilities of Pilot in Command (PIC) in Air India, as referred under Rule 141 of Aircraft Act 1934 and Rules made thereafter, observed that the duties and responsibilities of Pilot in Command are of managerial and administrative in nature, which may not fall in the definition of the 'Workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.”
In effect, what this means is that AI PICs are managers and belong to the administrative category of pilots, which forbids them from forming a union. There is a feeling in Airlines House that the August 20 notification gives legal sanctity to a practice that the erstwhile Indian Airlines has been following for over two decades.
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act says that any person (including an apprentice) employed in an industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act, in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, is a workman. It does not include any such person who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 1957; or who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding `10,000 per mensem (till September 15, 2010, it had been `1,600 ) or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
Section 2(g) of the Trade Unions Act defines ‘workman’ as “all persons employed in trade or industry whether or not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute arises.
The above definition has two ingredients : Workmen means all persons employed in trade or industry; and that it is immaterial that the persons employed in a trade or industry are not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute arises.
What is, however, more perplexing is the case of ‘pilots’. When the issue of salary is raised, the instance of ‘pilots’ works as a bulwark against managements by the workers. The pilots seem to be dissatisfied even with their high salary and agitate at the drop of a hat. By virtue of the sensitive nature of their work they have been able to extract more and more. The past history of the agitations by the pilots bears testimony that the pilots have exploited their status of ‘workmen’ under the umbrella of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 providing job security. In 1994, Air India pilots resorted to an unannounced ‘work-to-rule’ after senior flyers complained that they were receiving less flying allowance than their juniors. They whined that holding executive responsibilities left them with little time for flying. An obliging management gave in to their demand, and thus was born the ‘fly less-earn more’ agreement.
How the pilots became ‘workmen’ is an interesting story. On August 17, 1972, a reference was made by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal of Delhi on whether a dispute existed between the management of Mathur Aviation and its workman Captain Narinder Singh. One of the preliminary issues framed by the Industrial Tribunal was whether Captain Narinder Singh was a workman or notIJ The tribunal observed that “the main duties of Captain Narinder Singh as an employee of Mathur Aviation, were those of a pilot required to fly aircraft of the employer for carrying out aerial spray of standing crops… I have, therefore, no objection in holding that he is a workman.” Prior to that, the National Industrial Tribunal 2 had also observed that “a pilot’s duty is to drive an aircraft. He performs highly skilled and technical work’ and on this basis the pilots of Indian Airlines were declared to be workmen.” The High Court of Delhi had said: “Since Narinder Singh was not employed in a managerial or administrative capacity' being a pilot he was engaged primarily for air spray work. Therefore, he could not be said to be employed in supervisory capacity or in managerial capacity… Managerial or administrative functions require a person to control the work of others. It does not mean that a person who does some work and gets assistance for doing that work, can be described as a person who is working in a managerial or working capacity. Similarly, a person cannot be said to be working in a supervisory capacity merely because he has to supervise persons who help him in doing the work he himself has to perform. When one talks of the term ‘supervisor’, one understands it to mean a person who is watching the work being done to see that it is being performed properly.”
However, there is a world of difference between a pilot engaged for spraying chemicals and a pilot of passenger aircraft. A pilot of the passenger aircraft enjoys immense discretionary power, and while on board, his decision is final.