Status Of Pilots As ‘Workmen’ Reaffirmed Under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Illegal Termination Would Entail Complete Back Wages

In a landmark labour law ruling with far-reaching implications for the aviation sector and other industries, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has held in King Airways Ltd. v. Captain Pritam Singh & Ors. LPA 142/2013 that airline pilots, including pilots-in-command, fall squarely within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that their abrupt termination without due process entitles them to full back wages. The decision was delivered on 11 December 2025 and resolves a long-running dispute between King Airways and several of its former pilots, who had sought recovery of unpaid salaries, incentives for additional flying hours and related dues.

At the heart of the judgment is the court’s interpretation of the statutory definition of “workman.” King Airways had contended that pilots, by virtue of their senior designation, technical expertise and command authority during flights, performed managerial or supervisory functions that would exclude them from the Act’s protective ambit. The airline further relied on the notion that high remuneration and operational authority over flight discipline effectively placed pilots outside the scope of “workman” status. However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasising that designation and salary levels are legally irrelevant unless it is first established that the employee is engaged in managerial or supervisory roles in the industrial relations sense.

In interpreting Section 2(s), the bench applied the “predominant nature of duties” test, a longstanding principle in labour jurisprudence, to assess whether pilots’ functions entailed supervisory employment. It noted that the primary and defining duty of a pilot is technical and operational flying the aircraft which qualifies as skilled work under the Industrial Disputes Act. Any authority exercised over crew members or passengers, while essential for flight safety, was held to be ancillary and incidental to flight operations, and not equivalent to managerial or supervisory control in the industrial relations context. The court’s reasoning aligns with precedent that technical and operational duties remain within the protective fold of labour laws, irrespective of hierarchical titles or compensation packages.

On the question of termination, the bench found that the pilots were dismissed abruptly without adherence to the principles of natural justice a core requirement under labour law when employment is terminated. The evidence indicated that the terminations were connected to the pilots’ demands for overdue salary and incentives, leading the court to characterise the dismissals as illegal and punitive in nature. Since the employer failed to demonstrate that the pilots had been “gainfully employed” elsewhere during the period in question, the court held that there was no basis to deny back wages. Under established labour law principles, in cases of illegal termination, the normal and appropriate remedy is reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, unless exceptional circumstances justify a departure from this rule none of which were present in the case before the court.

The Division Bench accordingly dismissed the airline’s appeals, upheld the orders of the Industrial Tribunal and the Single Judge that had previously recognised the pilots’ workman status and entitlement to relief, and thereby brought an end to the protracted legal battle. The judgment reinforces two key labour law doctrines: first that the actual nature of work performed not the title or pay scale determines eligibility for statutory protection, and second, that remedies in disputes over unlawful termination must offer meaningful relief rather than symbolic outcomes.

For employers across sectors, this ruling highlights the importance of analysing the substantive role and function of employees when determining the applicability of labour law protections. It also highlights the judicial preference for substantive justice in employment disputes, reminding that compliance with the procedures and protections enshrined in labour statutes cannot be circumvented by organisational hierarchy or compensation structures.