In a case filed by the Air-India Aircraft Engineers' Association (AIAEA) challenging the appointment of executive engineers by the airline to carry out the work of certification of aircraft, Presiding officer S B Panse ruled that this job whether in India or abroad should be done by aircraft engineers who belong to workmen category.

He also upheld the AIAEA's demand that all foreign postings for certification of aircraft should be made strictly in accordance with the norms agreed to bilaterally between the management and the AIAEA in 1979.

The AIAEA had contended that certain categories of aircraft engineers are classified as `workmen,' in an award of the National Industrial Tribunal and also under a bilateral agreement with the management dated November28, 1979, whereby it was agreed that the work of certification of aircraft could be carried out by workmen alone.

It asserted that though executive engineers were qualified engineers holding licences for certification issued by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the bilateral agreement did not allow the management to entrust them the job of certification of aircraft.

However, when vacancies were created between December 1995 to June 1996, the management decided to post Assistant General Manager, Deputy General manager to some lucrative stations and entrusted them with the work of certification of aircraft. These positions at Tokyo, New York, London and Dubai were also given to executives.

The AIAEA argued that foreign postings carry substantial benefits for the workmen and it was the collective right of the workmen to get those postings and the work of the certification of the aircraft. The management wanted to transfer the duties and responsibilities of certification of the aircraft andequipments to executive staff at least in part and established in case of foreign postings. The management's action was grossly unfair, motivated and against the settlement, it said.

As per the bilateral settlement, the procedure involved was for drawing up of a seniority list of temporary/permanent postings in India and foreign stations. The management also confirmed in writing to the AIAEA that in case of any deviation from laid procedure of selection as per the seniority arose they (AIAEA) would be taken into confidence.

The management resisted the AIAEA's claim and argued that the dispute was not an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the reliefs sought by the AIAEA were an infringement on management's rights and outside the Central Government Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The management also denied that the work of certification of aircraft was to be carried out by workmen only. It submitted that the executive engineers possessing the required licences from the DGCAand approved by the quality control manager of the company was also entitled for the job. Even the provisions of the Aircraft Act and rules entitled the executive engineers to certify aircraft, it maintained.

The management also argued that other engineers who were earmarked had accepted the new stations as per the revised criteria which clearly indicated that they had accepted the change and appreciated the policy of the company. The executive engineers were not outsiders but promotees from the workmen category of aircraft engineers only, it added.