Statement:\nAlmost 90% of the flights of a private airline were cancelled for the fourth consecutive day as pilots refused to join duty in protest against the sacking of two colleagues by the airline management.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. The government should order the airline to reinstate the sacked pilots immediately to end the crisis.\nII. The government should take steps to end the impasse between management and pilots to help stranded passengers.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Labour disputes in private carriers affect the public interest (passengers, connectivity). The state’s role is facilitative—ensuring safety, consumer protection, and mediation—without dictating private employment decisions absent legal grounds.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Situation: Prolonged cancellations due to pilot protest over sackings.
• Stakeholders: Management, pilots (and unions), passengers, regulators.
• Public interest: Minimize disruption; uphold safety and fair practice.

Concept / Approach:
Assess whether each action is justified, feasible, and proportionate. Government compulsion to reinstate (I) intrudes into managerial prerogative without adjudication. Mediation/facilitation (II) aligns with public interest and regulatory remit.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Typical actions: labour commissioner mediation, civil aviation advisories, passenger redress mechanisms, contingency scheduling, and safety oversight.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “public interest” automatically authorizes the state to decide employment outcomes in private entities.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.