The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (September 27) concurred with Akasa Air’s argument that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is not entirely prohibited from taking action against pilots who violate the terms of their employment agreements.
However, the court did not immediately grant relief to Akasa Air, which had requested the DGCA and the Union Ministry of Civil Aviation to take action against pilots who had resigned without serving their notice period. In lieu of this, the court decided to address the issue of jurisdiction raised by the aviation sector regulator first.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasised that the DGCA had contended it lacked jurisdiction to consider the airline’s representation against the pilots’ breach of contract, as it was a contractual matter. This is why the court would need to determine the question of jurisdiction before issuing any further directives.
‘No absolute prohibition preventing DGCA from taking action’
The Delhi High Court clarified that there is no absolute prohibition preventing the DGCA from taking action, as argued by DGCA and the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and agreed with the airline’s position on this matter. However, the high court stated that during the pendency of Akasa Air’s plea, if a pilot breaches the minimum contractual notice period specified in their employment agreement, such actions would be at the pilot’s own risk, subject to the outcome of the ongoing petition.
As part of the interim order, the court instructed the DGCA and the ministry to take steps to prevent further violations of Civil Aviation Requirements and other rules during the duration of Akasa Air’s petition.
Additionally, the court included the Indian Pilots Guild and Federation of Indian Pilots as party respondents to the case and requested responses from the DGCA, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Indian Pilots Guild, and Federation of Indian Pilots to the main petition.
Akasa Air’s soaring ambitions hit turbulence
Akasa Air had filed the petition due to a crisis caused by the sudden resignation of 43 pilots without serving the mandatory notice period. The airline sought a directive for the DGCA to take coercive action against these pilots for their “irresponsible actions.” Akasa Air also requested an interim directive for the DGCA to take appropriate action against any future violations by its current pilots under existing law.
In response, the DGCA argued that it could not intervene in the employment agreements between pilots and Akasa Air. The regulator recommended that Akasa Air adhere to its mandate to maintain a limited flight schedule if it lacked the required number of pilots for operations.
No proof of flight cancellations due to pilot exits
The DGCA refuted the airline’s claim of approximately 600 flight cancellations since June, stating that it had not received any documentation or reasons for these cancellations. It clarified that 1.17 percent of Akasa Air’s flights were canceled in August 2023, including those attributed to pilot resignations. The regulator assured that it takes measures to minimise passenger inconvenience during major cancellations, which may include pilot resignations.
The Indian Pilots Guild and Federation of Indian Pilots opposed the airline’s petition, accusing it of engaging in multiple litigations by filing a civil suit against the pilots in the Bombay High Court. They also contested the airline’s assertion that the flight cancellations were solely due to pilot resignations, considering it an unsubstantiated claim.
Akasa Air pilot crisis unfold
Akasa Air, operating its first commercial flight in August 2022, requested the DGCA to take coercive action against pilots failing to comply with the mandatory notice period requirements outlined in the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR) 2017. The airline expressed deep concern over the pilots’ actions, which it deemed “reckless and irresponsible,” and their impact on its operations and contractual arrangements.
It also stated that the lack of consequences for such actions encouraged more pilots to resign without notice. The airline had sought assistance from DGCA representatives and the Minister of Civil Aviation but had not received a response or assurance from the authorities.