Former Air India pilot's plea against Tata-Vistara merger rejected by CCI

New Delhi : A plea by a former Air India pilot opposing the merger of Tata-owned Air India with Vistara was rejected by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) stating that there is no evidence placed on record by the petitioner which may suggest any case of cartelisation or bid-rigging.

The plea, filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Competition Act, alleged contravention of the Act by Air India Limited after its acquisition by the Tata group in 2022.

Earlier, the CCI through its order on September 9, 2023 had approved the merger of Tata-SIA Airlines Limited into Air India, subject to voluntary commitments by the involved parties.

In the plea, the informant, identified as Deepak Kumar, claimed adverse effects on his career and service record due to the merger, alleging malicious destruction of his service records by Air India.

He accused the airline of abusing its dominant position and engaging in predatory practices. The CCI, however, emphasised that the dispute appears to be an inter-se matter related to the informant's service rather than a competition concern.

The Commission found no evidence of cartelisation or bid-rigging, leading to the rejection of the plea. In its order, the CCI stated, "No prima facie case of contravention of any provisions of the Act can be made out against the OP (Air India) in the present matter."

The case is now closed as per the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act. Kumar had alleged that under the garb of the said transaction, his service records were maliciously destroyed by the OP. Kumar had also made allegations of criminal nature against certain individuals, alleging their complicity in such actions of the OP.

He had also alleged that the OP was abusing its dominant position by (i) directly and indirectly imposing prohibitory orders upon the Informant; (ii) limiting and restricting the scientific and technical development of the Informant's career as a pilot; (iii) adopted predatory practices against the Informant; and (iv) denying him market access by withholding his service records/not approving his flying records/destroying his service records/fabricating the public registers/creating false documents.