- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC seeks Air India’s response on pilot’s plea to withdraw resignation
The Delhi High Court has sought Air India’s response in a petition filed by one of its pilots seeking a direction to the national carrier to accept his request for withdrawing his resignation.A single judge bench of the High Court presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh issued a notice to the airline over the plea filed by the pilot associated with the airline, who had participated in...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court has sought Air India’s response in a petition filed by one of its pilots seeking a direction to the national carrier to accept his request for withdrawing his resignation.
A single judge bench of the High Court presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh issued a notice to the airline over the plea filed by the pilot associated with the airline, who had participated in several evacuation flights to different countries.
The petition filed through advocates Shankar Raju and Nilansh Gauris is now listed for hearing on August 4.
The petitioner said that he resigned on February 6 on account of non-payment of certain allowances and arrears, giving a notice period of six months under the Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR), which is slated to expire on August 8.
However, a few days later on March 19, the pilot withdrew his resignation but the airline has not taken any decision on the application by which he sought the withdrawal of the resignation.
During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the pilot has flown several evacuation and relief flights to different countries even during the tough times caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. He added that the petitioner flew as recently as on July 13.
Opposing the petition, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sen raised questions on the maintainability of the petition, stating that the same is “premature” as the employer has so far not taken any decision on the request made by the petitioner to withdraw his resignation.
Responding to the same, the petitioner’s counsel claimed that an employee can withdraw the resignation tendered by him before it takes effect and added that the airline has not taken any steps to find a replacement so far.