# In the matter of Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. Jet Airways Ltd.

> SC judgment dated 2023-07-25. Citation: TCN-2023-SC-00063. The appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, which upheld an award by the Central…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 25 Jul 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-SC-00063
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/bharatiya-kamgar-karmachari-mahasangh-vs-jet-airways-ltd-f5a37dda

## Summary

### Background

The appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay, which upheld an award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The CGIT had rejected the Appellant-Union's demand for reinstatement with full back wages for 169 workmen. These workmen were temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by the Respondent, Jet Airways Ltd. The Union argued that the workmen were treated as temporary despite completing 240 days of service, as per the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A settlement was reached on 2002-05-02, where the Union gave up the demand for permanency in exchange for other benefits. The Respondent claimed the workers were not entitled to permanency based on this settlement. The CGIT framed the issue of whether the Union's

…

## Facts

The Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh (Appellant-Union) represented around 169 workmen who were temporarily engaged on fixed-term contracts by Jet Airways Ltd. (Respondent). These workmen were employed in various roles such as loader-cum-cleaners, drivers, and operators. The Union contended that despite the workmen completing 240 days of service, they were treated as temporary, violating the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A settlement dated 2002-05-02 was reached where the Union relinquished the demand for permanency in exchange for a package deal conferring other benefits. Jet Airways claimed that the workers were not entitled to permanency based on this settlement. The CGIT rejected the Union's demand for reinstatement with full back

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appropriate Authority is empowered to issue the Standing Order(s) under the Industrial …

**Ratio:** The appropriate government is defined by Section 2(b) of the Act. For industrial

…

**Reasoning:** The Court reasoned that since the Respondent Company (Jet Airways Ltd.) is not under the

…

**Interpretation:** Section 2(b) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, defines

…

**Application:** In this case, since Jet Airways Ltd. is not under the control of the Central

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** ABHAY S…; Sanjay…
- **Appellants:** Bharatiya Kamgar…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Jet Airways…

## Timeline

- **2002-05-02 — Settlement Ag…**: A settlement was reached between the Union and the Respondent, where the Union gave up…
- **2017-03-30 — CGIT Awa…**: The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) passed an award rejecting the…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/bharatiya-kamgar-karmachari-mahasangh-vs-jet-airways-ltd-f5a37dda