V. N. KHARE, VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ( 1 ) THE Court : There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) by consent of parties we proceed to finally decide the appeal after dispensing with the paper book and all other formalities and treating the same as on the day's list. ( 2 ) THIS appeal at the instance of Indian Airlines Limited and others is directed against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30th April, 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the decision taken by the appellant to withdraw the letter dated 25th November. 1994. The petitioner-respondent before us is Senior Traffic Superintendent in the Indian Airlines and is posted at Calcutta since the year 1991. It appears that certain matters in dispute were referred to the National Industrial Tribunal. Bombay for adjudication between Indian Airlines and its employees. initially the petitioner-respondent claimed to be the President of the Union of employees which was not a party to the aforesaid adjudication. However, by an order dated 25th November, 1994 the Deputy General Manager, Commercial. informed the Deputy General Manager. Personnel, that a decision has been taken to retain the petitioner respondents at Calcutta till the finalisation or closing of the adjudication proceedings before the National Industrial Tribunal. It was further informed that the petitioner-respondent being on the top of the list for transfer to outstation he will have to go on transfer according to stipulation even if he was over 55 years of age by that time. It appears that certain members of the recognised Union protested against the letter referred to above. According to them by this letter the management of the Indian Airlines had treated the employee with uneven hands. It further appears that on such representations the management of Indian Airlines took a decision to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994 on January, 1996. It further appears that before the decision could be taken by the management of Indian Airlines the petitioner-respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction that the respondent-appellant be prohibited from withdrawing the letter dated 25th November. 1994. Initially the teamed judge while entertaining the writ application passed ad-interim order. Subsequently the writ petition has been allowed. It is against this order that the appellants have come up before us. 1994. Initially the teamed judge while entertaining the writ application passed ad-interim order. Subsequently the writ petition has been allowed. It is against this order that the appellants have come up before us. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in quashing the decision is patently erroneous inasmuch as mere representation by the employee of the rival union to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994 cannot be construed as a pressure on the management and the view taken by the learned Single Judge in quashing the decision to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994 is patently illegal. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents pressed into service principle of promissory estoppel and argued that the petitioner respondent having acted upon the representation of Appellant has changed his position to his detriment, and as such the appellants are now estoppel from withdrawing the letter dated 25th November, 1994. ( 5 ) BEFORE we take up the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties it is necessary to reproduce the stand taken by the appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition wherein they have given the reason for the withdrawal of the letter dated 25th November, 1994. It runs as follows :"it is stated that in view of the said para (c) of the minutes of the meeting dated 7th October, 1988 being Anneexure-A here of the petitioner is liable to be transferred as he is not as elected representative of A. C. E. U. The non-transfer of the petitioner has irked a strong resentment amongst a large section of employees of the respondent No. 1 who are in the category of the writ petitioner, particularly those who are below the writ petitioner in the positional list in the matter of transfer and they have demanded that unless the petitioner is transferred to outstation they should also not be transferred. This situation has created a tremendous administrative hindrance of the respondent No. 1 for its smooth functioning. The persons who have completed their one year tenure of transfer in outstation cannot be transferred back to Calcutta unless the persons referred to above are transferred to replace them. This situation has created a tremendous administrative hindrance of the respondent No. 1 for its smooth functioning. The persons who have completed their one year tenure of transfer in outstation cannot be transferred back to Calcutta unless the persons referred to above are transferred to replace them. Overstaying of the persons in respective out stations more than year has not only resulted In administrative difficulty but also financial burden on the respondent No. 1 to deviate such predicament and m order to bring an industrial harmony it has been decided to withdraw the letter dared 25th November, 1994 being Annexure-A to the petition. " ( 6 ) FROM a narration of the fact it is clear that there was strong resentment amongst the employees against the letter dated 25th November, 1994 and for that reason they have made a representation re appellants. it cannot be disputed that employees have right of representation if they are treated by uneven hands by the management and such a representation or resentment cannot be construed as pressure on the management to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994. We are clearly of opinion that while running the administration it is open to the appellant-management to consider the representation of other employees and management is within their rights to withdraw the letter dated 25th November, 1994. We do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in the withdrawal of the letter dared 25th November, 1994. So far as the question of changing the position to its detriment by the petitioner respondent is concerned we do not find any merit. In fact the petitioner-respondent wanted to take benefit of the adjudication proceedings for remaining in Calcutta and to avoid the impending transfer. In such circumstances the principle of promissory estoppel is not available to the petitioner respondent. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid reasons the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. This appeal is allowed without costs. ( 8 ) ALL parties concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Appeal allowed