Jet Airways staff wants management to be summoned over non-payment of salaries

The staff of Jet Airways has approached the labour department to summon the management and the former chairman of the erstwhile Jet Airways, Naresh Goyal over the non payment of salary arrears, gratuity among others, according to a PTI report. In a letter addressing the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Jet Airways Officers and Staff Association also asked for the monitoring committee which is handling the matter for the winning bidder, Jalan-Kalrock consortium and pass an order on the same.

Goyal cannot wash away from his responsibilities

Earlier, a meeting was held with the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner and Regional Labour Commisioner Mumbai by the association on the matter of the outstanding legitimate dues of its members, who have been affected by the carrier’s grounding about two and a half years ago.

According to the letter from the association, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) order provides for only a microscopic settlement, pegged at Rs 52 crore to its employees. It also added that many members of the employer’s union had sent applications to the NCLT and made them aware of the resolution plan through intervention of application. The copy of the letter has been marked to Goyal as well.

Further, the letter stated that the NCLT made an order that the association need not be given the details of the plan as they did not meet certain criteria as creditors. This came as a shock to them as the order did not have any reference to our legal dues at all.

Also, the efforts to revive the company with its own aircrafts and air operator permit has been going on without any consideration to the legitimate and legal dues of the employees, the letter said. It also gave an affirmation that gratuity is a statutory due and needs to be settled by the employer without any delay and make the payments at 12% as awarded by the courts, it added.

The letter also added that the former Chairman Naresh Goyal cannot run away from his responsibility by invoking the provisions of the IBC act, as many employees quit the company before suspense of operations. So, he is also liable as the company had violated Section 4A of the act.