Mere recruitment of trained pilots of
an airline by another airline will not bring about structural changes in the
operations of the market. CCI rejected Air India's allegation of predatory
recruitment of its trained pilots against IndiGo saying the matter is more of
an employment issue Facts:
a) The informant, Air India Ltd. filed
complaint against InterGlobe Aviation Limited (the ‘IndiGo’) under section19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, 2002 (the ‘Act’) alleging, interalia,
contravention of the provisions of
section 4 of the Act
b) It was alleged that the IndiGo has
systematically indulged in predatory recruitment of trained pilots of the Air
India for its proposed expansion and inducing them to breach contractual and
other obligations.
c) It is further alleged that the
IndiGo, by indulging in unlawful predatory recruitment practice, acquired a 52%
market share in the non-metro to non-metro flight sector, making it a monopoly
in that sector.
d) The Informant also stated that the
Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had made it
mandatory for pilots to obtain ‘No
Objection Certificate’ and, accordingly, all Airlines must
ensure that the pilots hired by them
have to serve the required six month notice period however, the IndiGo
continued to disregard this direction of DGCA
e) The Informant prayed to the
Commission to intervene for ensuring free and fair competition in the aviation
industry and also prayed to inter alia impose penalties on the
IndiGo for alleged abuse of dominant
position The Competition Commission of India held as under:
1) The allegations leveled against
IndiGo did not seem to raise any competition concern in the market. It said
that “an airline recruiting another airline’s pilots will not bring about
structural changes in the operations of the market”.
2) That there is no bar on the Air
India or any other airlines from recruiting pilots belonging to other airlines
after seeking ‘No objection Certificate’ from them, which indicates that there exists
a flexibility with respect to the pilot recruitment.
3) The Commission said that it was more
of an employment issue than a competition issue.
Therefore, the issues alleged in the
complaint did not raise any competition concern within
the meaning of the Act.
4) The Commission did not find any
contravention of the provisions of section 4 of the Act
against the IndiGo and, accordingly, directed
to close the matter under the provisions of
section 26(2) of the Act. - [2016] 66 taxmann.com 262 (CCI)
No comments:
Post a Comment