Are Airline Pilots “Workmen” Under Labour Law Despite High Salaries? Delhi HC Answers

Tanwi Shyama

KIIT School of Law 

Editor : Harsh Kashyap

As per the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to perform manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. However, this definition excludes individuals employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, and people employed in a supervisory role but earn wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per month, and carry out functions primarily of a managerial nature.

To determine whether an individual qualifies as a workman, salary is not the decisive factor; rather, the nature of the duties performed is pivotal. In another case Indian Airlines Pilot was recognised as a workman by the Supreme Court, even though he earned a salary running into lakhs per month. Similarly, according to the Delhi High Court judgment, airline pilots come within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, because the functions discharged by them are skilled and technical in nature.

The decision was delivered by the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar and they dismissed a batch of appeals filed by King Airways, which had challenged labour court orders passed in favour of its pilots. These appeals arose from a judgment of a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court that had upheld the pilots’ status as workmen and affirmed their entitlement to remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Single Judge affirmed the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court’s order of granting pilots unpaid salaries, incentives for additional flying hours, and related dues and held that their designation as Pilots-in-Command or Captains did not place them in supervisory or managerial roles to exclude them from the definition of “workman.” Before the Division Bench, King Airways argued that Pilots-in-Command perform supervisory functions over the crew, earn salaries exceeding the statutory limit. The captain’s role falls within the supervisory or managerial exclusion under Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The airline argued that, based on appointment letters, operational manuals, and Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, pilots exercise supervisory control over crew during flights and are therefore excluded from labour law protections. The airline claimed that the Single Judge had upheld the Tribunal’s award of providing back wages without properly examining whether the termination was unjustified or not, and whether the pilots were employed in a profitable position during the relevant period. The pilots argued that their primary duty is to fly the aircraft and that any reference to supervision under aviation laws relates only to flight safety, not managerial or supervisory control. They told the court that they do not exercise any authority over the service conditions, discipline, or day-to-day work of the crew, and that the determination of “workman” status must be based on actual duties rather than designation or salary. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, they contended that labour laws should be interpreted in a pragmatic and welfare-oriented manner.

The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge and held that pilots fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act due to the skilled and technical nature of their functions. The Court clarified that once a pilot is found to be a workman based on the nature of duties, the salary-based and supervisory exclusions under Section 2(s)(iv) do not apply. It further distinguished between nominal command during flight and real supervisory authority, observing that pilots do not exercise actual supervisory control over crew members in an industrial sense.

The Court rejected the airline’s argument that high remuneration alone could exclude pilots from the definition of workman, holding that salary will be relevant only after supervisory functions are established. The Court further held that terminations were illegal as the employer had failed to prove that the pilots were gainfully employed during the intervening period. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the airline’s appeals and affirmed that the pilots were workmen entitled to relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.