Rajendra Babu, J. - (1.) These appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court of Calcutta in writ petition Nos. 488/1993 and 489/1993 filed in the High Court challenging the validity of Regulation 13(b), substituted by Notification No. S. O. 134/(E) dated March 15, 1993, of the Indian Airlines Employees' (Aircraft Engineering Department) Service Regulations, 1959 [for short 'the Regulations'], which provides that no employee shall resign from employment of the Corporation without giving six months notice in writing to the Corporation of his/her intention to resign with provision for Managing Director of the Corporation to dispense with or reduce the period of notice on medical grounds or other special circumstances. A further proviso being to the effect that Corporation may refuse to accept termination if the same is sought to avoid disciplinary action contemplated or taken and a circular No. AIC/3/93 dated February 25, 1993 was issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) by which a condition was added in relation to Air Taxi operator to the effect that "no Air Taxi operator shall employ anyone already serving any of the national carriers, namely, Air India, Indian Airlines, Vayudoot and Pawan Hans without obtaining a 'No objection Certificate' from the employer with whom they are working".
(2.) The writ petition were filed by a Commander Pilot working under Indian Airlines Corporation. He had been offered the post of Commander Pilot under M/s Damania Travels but on account of Regulation 13(b) and circular No AIC/3/93 dated February 25, 1993 the respondent could not join the new post immediately which had placed an embargo on his employment and thus he sought for an interim order. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the matter cannot be effectively decided without the presence of M/s Damania Travels, namely, the writ petitioner's prospective employer, and M/s Damania Travels was directed to be added as a party. Even thereafter the learned Single Judge refused to grant the interim order. The respondents preferred appeals against the said order of the learned Single Judge but on noticing that it would be more appropriate to dispose of the main matter itself, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the writ petition along with the appeals arising out of the refusal to grant the interim orders thus necessitating these appeals by special leave.
(3.) Original Regulation 13(b) provided that "a Pilot could resign from his service after giving 30 days' notice or offering one month's basic pay to the employer in lieu of the said 30 days' notice". However, in view of the substitution of Regulation 13(b) by Notification No. S.O.134/(E) dated March 15, 1993, the respondent offered to quit the post but the appellant-Airlines did not allow the release of the respondent. The High Court examined in great detail the scope of the provisions of the Air Corporations Act, 1953 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Air Corporations Act'] and the Rules framed thereunder with reference to the Regulation in question. The High Court discussed various aspects of the matter, however, it did not deal with the challenge to the validity of Regulation 13(b), as such. Even after very careful examination of the order of the High Court, we do not find any discussion or consideration on the question of validity of Regulation 13(b) in the entire order, except to allow the writ petitions in their entirety. When the contentions put forth on behalf of the parties or the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel on this aspect were not considered by the High Court, much less any reasons given in the order, we do not think, the High Court could have quashed the said Regulation. We do not wish to express any opinion on the validity or otherwise of the said Regulation inasmuch as the same has not been considered by the High Court in the impugned order, except observing that the High Court has not considered the same or decided the matter. Thus the relief granted by the High Court in quashing Regulation 13(b) shall stand set aside. The question whether the Regulation 13(b) is valid or otherwise is kept open to be considered in a proceeding that may arise hereafter. We are doing so particularly in view of the fact that the respondents who obtained the relief at the hands of the High Court have remained ex parte in these proceedings. We had to request Shri V. R. Reddy, the learned Senior Advocate, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, who has made very valuable contribution to the debate and we are beholden to him.;