Smt. Advika Gulshan Chunekar vs Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services Inte on 19 August 2026

1. The CEO Mr. Carsten Spohr, Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services International India Pvt. Ltd., Novotel Pullman Hotel, 2nd Floor Commercial Block, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037.

2. Florian Hoser, Head of Corporate & Business Functions, Regional Management South Asia, Novotel Pullman Hotel, 2nd Floor Commercial Block, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037.

3. Namita Chowdhary, Head- Human Resources, Novotel Pullman Hotel, 2nd Floor Commercial Block, Aerocity, New Delhi-110037.

…Managements/respondents

Award 19.08.2026 I.D. No. 205/2022 19th August 2026 Present: Sh. Utkarsh Batra and Sh. Saksham Kalra, Ld. ARs for the claimant. Sh. Swarnendu Chaterjee and Ms. Prapti Alag, Ld. ARs for the management.

I.D. No. 205/2022

Arguments on the application of the claimant filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908, seeking to place on record an amended memo of parties and amended claim statement, were heard. The Ld. AR for the management filed a compilation of judgments in support of his contention. Shortly thereafter, the Ld. AR for the claimant also filed a compilation of judgments. During the course of arguments, the Ld. AR for the claimant pressed his application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908, whereby the claimant seeks to amend the names of the parties. It is the case of the claimant that the name of management-1 has been inadvertently wrongly mentioned in the array of parties as well as in some parts of the pleadings as Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services International India Pvt. Ltd., whereas the name of management-1 is Lufthansa German Airlines. The claimant has sought to amend the said cause title. This application has been replied to by management-1, opposing the prayer of the claimant. It has been submitted that the applicant is seeking to amend the memo of parties and the claim statement with a view to rectify the fatal defect of instituting a claim against a party which is not relevant to the purported issue at all, that too, upon an objection being raised in this regard by way of an application by Deutsche Lufthansa AG. A bare perusal of the application under reply would make it manifest that admittedly, the complaint filed by the applicant is non-est, inasmuch as she has filed the same against a wrong and non-existent entity, namely, Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services International India Private Limited, despite the fact that she was well aware of who her employer was. Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services International India Pvt. Ltd. and Lufthansa German Airlines are separate and distinct legal entities and the former is not the employer of the claimant/applicant. It has been submitted that this Tribunal does not have the power to implead/delete/substitute parties under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908. As such, it has been submitted that the application is liable to be dismissed. The Ld. AR for the claimant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1966) (MANU/SC/0016/1969), wherein it was held that amendment

I.D. No. 205/2022

of pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitation. He has further referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Purushottam Umedbhai & Co. v. Manilal and Sons (Civil Appeal Nos. 178 and 179 of 1960), whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed amendment of the pleadings. Before proceeding further, the facts of the case are required to be reproduced herein. Upon obtaining the failure report from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Delhi-I, the present case was filed under Sections 2-A and 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the claimant against the management of Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services International India Pvt. Ltd. The applicant claimed to be a workman employed by Deutsche Lufthansa German Airlines as a Flight Attendant on 05.04.2007 and, as per the terms of the contract of employment, the workman served her mandatory probationary period of six months, whereafter her services were confirmed by the management and, to this effect, a letter of confirmation of employment dated 04.10.2007 was also issued in favour of the workman. She was employed for a period of five years against a permanent vacancy. However, before expiry of the five-year period, her employment was extended by a further fixed period of five years in the year 2012 and again on 05.04.2017 it stood extended by a further period of five years. All three extensions were without any break in service even for a single day. At the time of each extension, the previous salary (including increments) was retained. In between, the claimant conceived and informed the management about her decision to continue with her pregnancy vide email dated 30.12.2020, and sought to be on maternity leave, which was also approved by the management on the same day. A copy of the email conversation dated 30.12.2020 has also been annexed with the claim statement. In the meanwhile, the Lufthansa Cabin Crew Union representing the Cabin Crew, including the Applicant/workman herein, had submitted its Charter of Demands containing diverse demands on behalf of the Cabin Crew, including the claimant, which were taken up in conciliation proceedings, which failed, and the Government of India was pleased to refer the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide order dated 22.01.2018, and I.D. Case No. 05/2018 is pending final adjudication before this Tribunal. She

I.D. No. 205/2022

submitted that Lufthansa Cabin Crew Union agreed for a wage cut of 15% for the months of April-August 2020, 25% for September 2020 and 35% from October-December 2020. Also, a 20% wage cut in the 13th salary, which is generally given to the crew in the month of November. The management then sought the acceptance of a 100% wage cut for two years commencing from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2022. She submitted that the Lufthansa Cabin Crew Union was agreeable to even consider the said proposal of 100% wage cut for two years commencing from 01.01.2021 up to 31.12.2022, subject to the management assuring the union that upon the expiry of the said two-year period, i.e., 31.12.2022, the workmen would be continued in service for a minimum period of two years thereafter. In retaliation to the rejection of its last proposal, the management terminated the services of 103 cabin crew members (including the claimant) w.e.f. 02.02.2021 despite her approved maternity leave. In response, the management filed its written statement wherein it stated that the dispute raised by the claimant was incorrect, ill-conceived, misconceived, legally unsustainable, not eligible to be taken cognizance of and was liable to be dismissed. It stated that Section 33-A of the Act is attracted only in such cases where the termination of service of the claimant is punitive and is founded on an act of misconduct. The present case is not a case where the crew members, including the claimant, were dismissed from service for committing an act of misconduct. In fact, on a bare perusal of the termination letter, it is clear that the services of the crew members who were appointed on a fixed-term contract were terminated in terms of Clause 1 of their contract, wherein they were paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice along with other contractual and statutory dues. The management further submitted that the union challenged the termination of crew members by alleging violation of Sections 33 and 25-F of the Act. The management further asserted that the present claim is not maintainable because it was filed after a certificate under Section 2-A was issued by the Labour Commissioner. In the said certificate, it was mentioned that “Now the applicant wants to discontinue the present conciliation process and to take up the matter with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court directly under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010. The mandatory 45 days of filing her dispute before the Conciliation Officer as provided under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes

I.D. No. 205/2022

(Amendment) Act, 2010 has been completed on 24.05.2021.” It is submitted that the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 has been repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act of 2016. Therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. The management further submitted that the claim has been filed against an improper party, whereas the discussion having been failed with the claimant is factually incorrect. The reliance placed upon the judgments by the Ld. AR for the claimant is misconceived. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a complete code in itself. Section 2-A had been inserted in the Act in 1967 and was further amended in 2010. The original Section 2-A provided that the dispute against termination, dismissal and discharge of the claimant is deemed to be an Industrial Dispute without being sponsored by any union as mandated. The original section was 2-A and Sections 2-A(2) and 2-A(3) had been inserted, whereby an individual workman had been given the liberty to approach a Tribunal directly against his alleged termination, dismissal and discharge. However, a condition was put in place whereby the workman would have to approach a Conciliation Officer first for conciliation, and the workman can file his claim before a Tribunal if the conciliation proceedings have failed, within a period of three years from the date of her alleged termination. A bare perusal of the failure certificate issued by the Conciliation Officer dated 21.06.2021 shows that the claimant had filed the claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner against the management of Deutsche Lufthansa AG Shared Services International India Pvt. Ltd. Now she wants to add another company, i.e., Lufthansa German Airlines. The law does not make it permissible because, as per industrial law, the claimant was required to approach the Conciliation Officer first. If the right party was not impleaded before the Conciliation Officer, then what would the Conciliation Officer do, as the right party did not appear. Therefore, the claimant cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings, deleting the name of the present management and impleading a new one in its place. In view of the above discussion, the application in hand stands dismissed. No useful purpose would be served by proceeding further

I.D. No. 205/2022

with the case, as it has been filed against a wrong management/respondent. Therefore, the present claim stands dismissed. A copy of this Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for notification under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The file be consigned to the Record Room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG

Dated 19.08.2026

Presiding Officer

CGIT – cum – Labour Court – II