Air Traffic Safety Electronics Personnel Association (India) v. Airports Authority of India

1. The petitioner association, which claims to be representing the interest of the employees engaged in the work of communication, navigation and surveillance in the respondent no.1 organization has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 Authority not to defer the remuneration (Salary, Perks and other entitlements under contract of employment) of the members of Petitioners Association and other employees working in Respondent No. 1 Authority and/ or b) Issue an appropriate writ, Order or directions Directing the Respondent No. 2 to refund the Special 2022:DHC:3783 Dividend it has received from the Respondent No 1 Authority for the year ended 3 pt March 2018 and 3 pt March 2019 aggregating to Rs. 3,780.49 crores to enable the said Respondent No.1 Authority to pay the remuneration to all its employees and/or c) Issue an appropriate writ, Order or directions directing the Respondent No. 2 to recover all outstanding dues from various private entities that have been entrusted in developing airports without any further delay and / or d) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to provide funds to the Respondent No. 1 Authority to provide for capital that may be required by the said Authority for the discharge of its functions under Airports Authority Act, 1995 or for any purpose connected therewith on such terms and conditions as that Government may determine and also pay to the Authority, on such terms and conditions as the Central Government may determine interest free loans or grants as it may consider necessary for the efficient discharge by the Authority of its functions under this Act; e) Issue an appropriate writ! Order/ Directions by restraining the Respondent No.1 from declaring any dividend for three years from 01.04.2020 or till they attain good financial health and /or; f) Issue an appropriate writ! Order/ Directions by Directing the Respondent No.2 for not seeking special dividend from the Respondent No.1 till the time the respondent No.1 attains financial health as they existed in Pre Covid Pandemic period and/ or;”

2. At the outset, it may be noted that on 15.07.2021, notice in the petition was issued confined only to prayer (a) of the petition. It may also be noted at this stage itself that the all the arrears towards the amounts payable as perks to the employees which were deferred by respondent no.1 in July, 2021, already stand paid to them in January, 2022. The petitioner’s prayer (a) which was the only prayer qua which notice was issued, therefore stands satisfied in principle. The petitioner has however, moved an application being CM APPL.1069/2022 seeking a direction to respondent no.1 to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the arrears towards perks which was deferred for the period between July, 2021 to December, 2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in July, 2021 after the respondent no.1 arbitrarily decided to stop 50% of perks of the employees and informed them that the said payments were being deferred for the present. It is only thereafter that the respondent no.1 issued a circular in this regard on 23.07.2021 stating therein that payment of 50% of the perks of the employees, which was about 17.5% of their salary, was being deferred till 31.12.2021, as a temporary measure.

4. He submits that even though the employees have now received the outstanding arrears of the perks payable to them, the respondents ought to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the deferred payment for which purpose he seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (2021) SCC Online SC 237.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the petition and submit that the decision to defer the amount payable towards perks to employees till December, 2021 was only taken as a temporary measure in view of the financial difficulties being faced by them on account of the limited air traffic and consequential lesser use of airports during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. They submit that the payment of 50% of the perks, which is barely 17.5% of the salary of the employees was deferred for a period of 6 months and the entire arrears were released to the employees in January, 2022 itself. They contend that this temporary deferment of payment of a part of the salary by the respondents during the difficult times of Covid-19 pandemic cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified and therefore, pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find absolutely no reason to direct payment of any interest by the respondents. It is not disputed by the petitioner that this deferment of 50% of the perks was directed by the respondent no.1 only for a period of 6 months when the nation was hit with the deadly second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, during which period, air traffic was considerably reduced. Despite such a situation, the respondent no.1 continued to pay major portion of salary to all its employees all through the pandemic. Infact, the respondent no.1 was justified in expecting its employees to render cooperation to their employer, who despite financial difficulties, continued to pay them 82.[5] % of their salaries including 50% of the perks. Moreover, the deferment was only for a period of 6 months and therefore, the action of respondent no.1, cannot in any manner, be said to be arbitrary or unjustified so as to warrant any payment of interest on this deferred amount.

7. I have also considered the decision of the Apex Court in Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (supra), heavily relied upon by the petitioner but find that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a situation where a part or whole of salary of various categories of employees of the State of Andhra Pradesh had been withheld and had reduced the interest @ 12% per annum awarded by the High Court to 6% per annum after noticing that the payment of salaries had not been made for months together. In the present case, not only was the payment of the basic salary being made in time, but even the deferment of 50 % of the perks was for a short period of 6 months. Moreover, unlike the State Government, the revenue of petitioner’s employer/respondent no.1 is generated primarily from services provided at the airports. When the air traffic was considerably reduced in July, 2021, the decision of the respondent no.1 to defer payment of 17.5% of the salaries of its employees cannot be said to be so arbitrary so as to warrant payment of any interest.

8. I, therefore, find no merit in the petitioner’s claim for interest. Since the primary relief seeking release of the amounts payable to the employees towards 50% of the perks already stands satisfied, no further orders are called for in the writ petition which is accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGE SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 kk