HC upholds reinstatement of airline security staff after wrongful termination

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld a ruling reinstating 10 Saudi Arabian Airlines employees who were terminated under the pretext that their security department at Mumbai Airport was closing due to government directives.
The court found no evidence supporting the airline’s claim that the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) had mandated such closure, ruling the terminations violated labour laws.
The decision affirms the Central Government Industrial Tribunal’s (CGIT) earlier order, which directed the reinstatement of the employees with full back wages and continuity of service.
The dispute originated when Saudi Arabian Airlines terminated 10 security controllers in two phases during 2013—three in July and seven in September. The airline claimed BCAS directives prohibited foreign airlines from handling their own security functions, necessitating outsourcing and departmental closure at Mumbai Airport.
The Saudi Arabian Airlines Employees Association, representing the terminated workers, challenged these dismissals before CGIT. They argued that BCAS had issued no such directive requiring security department closure or staff termination. Instead, they contended the airline had misinterpreted BCAS guidelines, which actually mandated airlines to maintain trained security staff and security control rooms.
After examining the evidence, CGIT determined the airline’s claim of mandated closure was unsubstantiated. The tribunal noted that BCAS orders not only permitted foreign airlines to handle their own security functions but required them to maintain security coordinators and trained personnel. Additionally, the tribunal found the airline had failed to comply with mandatory labour law provisions, including prior notice requirements under section 25FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Saudi Arabian Airlines challenged the CGIT ruling in the Bombay High Court, maintaining that BCAS directives necessitated the terminations. The airline argued that outsourcing security functions to Indian carriers was unavoidable and retaining security staff would have created an economic burden.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, however, dismissed these arguments, concurring with CGIT’s findings. The court noted that the airline had maintained certain security operations post-closure and had hired other personnel for security-related positions. “The terminations were premeditated and failed to comply with statutory requirements under labour laws,” the court observed.
The judgment reinforces the principle that employers cannot arbitrarily terminate employees under the guise of organisational changes without adhering to legal procedures and obligations.