Padaya vs Air India Ltd. - Employment Dispute

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 3, Cited by 0 ] ### Bombay High Court

Anupam Pinakinbhai Padaya vs Air India Ltd. And 2 Ors. on 23 March, 2026

Author: S.M.Modak

Bench: S.M.Modak

2026:BHC-OS:6980-DB
21-WP-1999-2023+IA-2410-2021.doc

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO.1999 OF 2023

SATISH WITH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2410 OF 2021
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Date: 2026.03.23
Anupam Pinakinbhai Padaya ...Petitioner/Applicant
19:11:48 +0530

                          V/s.
                  Air India Ltd. and Ors.                                       ...Respondents
                                                         *****
                  Mr.Dayanand H.               i/b. Nedumpara and Nedumpara, Advocate for
                  Petitioner.
                  Mr.Sudhir Jalsania (Sr.Counsel) a/w Mr.Lancy D'Souza, Ms.Deepika
                  Agarwal and Mr.V.M.Parkar, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
                                                             *****
                                                      CORAM    :     S.M.MODAK AND
                                                                     SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ. DATE     :     23rd MARCH 2026
                  P. C. :- 1.      The Petitioner has filed the present Petition essentially against

                  the employer - Air India Limited seeking following prayers:-

"(a) declare that with the Exhibit H judgment of this Hon'ble
Court which became final, authoritative and binding with
the Supreme Court declining leave to appeal against it, the
removal/dismissal of the Petitioner from service was one
rendered void ab initio, still born, one which never ever
existed in the eye of law, and as a consequence thereof, the
Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with
retrospective effect from the date of his illegal removal, with
all consequential benefits and in particular, back wages,
terminal and other benefits and a consequential writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to

21-WP-1999-2023+IA-2410-2021.doc

reinstate the Petitioner in service with retrospective effect
with all consequential benefits forthwith.

(b) declare that Exhibit J notice under Section 3 B(1) and Section 4 (2) (b) (ii) of Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971, is unconstitutional and
void ab initio, one vitiated by malice, and issue a
consequential writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and
setting aside the same.

(c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Respondents to pay an amount of Rs.25 lakhs as exemplary
damages for victimization on the sole reason that the
Petitioner belongs to the Schedule Caste community.

(d) pass such further and other orders as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require."
2. In R.S. Madireddy and Another V/s. Union of India and Others 1,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India is not maintainable before the High Court

against Air India Limited on account of the fact that Air India Limited

is no longer an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India.

1. In that view of the matter, we have not inclined to entertain the

present Petition.

1. The Petitioner would be at liberty to adopt appropriate remedies

available in law in respect of his grievances raised in the Petition.

Leaving open all the remedies, as observed above, the Writ Petition is

disposed of.

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965

                                         21-WP-1999-2023+IA-2410-2021.doc

1. Pending Interim Applications also stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (S.M.MODAK, J.)