International Airport Authority Employees Union
Vs. Airport Authority of India & Ors  INSC 431 (11 April 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
APPEAL NOS. 2990,2991,2992, OF 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14116, 13533, 19232, 13055/96, and 4088-98/97) AND I.A. NOS.
8-10 OF 1997 IN civil appeal nos. 15532-34 of 1996 O R D E R Leave granted.
appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
made on march 27,1996 in W.P. Nos.1494/89, 2362/90 and 504/1991. The
appellant-workmen came to be employed as sweepers in International Airport, National Airport Cargo Complex and Import Warehouse.
upon the abolition of the contract labour system, with effect from December 9, 1976 in the light of the judgment of
this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Etc v. United Labour Union &
Ors. Etc. [1996 (9) SCALE 70] they are also entitled to be regularised with
effect from the date of the judgment of the High Court and where the matter is
not covered by the judgment with effect from the date of the judgment rendered
on December 6, 1996, as held in Masih Charan & Ors. v. U.O.I. & Ors. in
Writ Petition (C) No.219/1995 dated March 10, 1997.
and Ms. Indira Jaising learned senior counsel have brought to our notice that
the workmen have been working for a long time. Though the regularisation of
their services with effect from the date of judgment was given by this Court
since they have come in appeal by virtue of that part of the judgment in these
cases, viz., they are not entitled to the benefit from the date of the
abolition of the contract labour system, the same benefit may be given from the
date of the judgment of the High Court. With a view to maintain uniformity in
the orders passed, we think that the procedure adopted earlier would be the
feasible one in the fact-situation namely, where the matter is covered by the
judgment of the High Court, the regularisation will be International Airports
Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc. etc.
from the respective dates. Where the matter is not covered by the judgment of
the High Court, i.e., in the case filed under Article 32. it operates from the
date of the judgment of this Court in India Statutory Corpn. etc. v. United Labour
Union & Ors. [1996 (9) SCALE 70]. However, since they have been working for
a long time prior to the abolition of the contract labour system where the
principle of pension and gratuity scheme is in operation, the authorities are
directed to compute the previous length of service from the date of appointment
by contract till they retire from service for the purpose of all retiral
if there is any dispute as to the date from which they are working, it is
always open to the respondents to verify the same with prior notice to the
respective workmen or accredited agents, as the case may be, and then decide
that particular controversy in an individual case.
appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
S.L.P. (C) NO. 14116/96 Leave granted.
controversy also involves three type of workmen, namely, sweepers, canteen,
workers and cabin catering cleaners. As far as the sweepers are concerned, it
is covered by the judgment of this Court Air Statutory Corpn. etc. v. United Labour
Union & Ors.[1996 (9) SCALE 70].
they are entitled to regularisation with effect from the date of the judgment
of the High Court. Though the High Court has disallowed the relief since we
allowed the similar benefit, they are entitled to the benefit from the date of
the High Court judgment. With regard to canteen workers the matter requires
remittance for reconsideration by the High Court in the light of the judgment
in Air India International Authority case and other cases on the subject.
the High Court is requested to consider the case afresh.
appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
C.A...... @ S.L.P. (C) No. 13533/96
& 19232/96 leave granted.
have heard learned counsel on both sides. ;
appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division bench of the
Bombay High Court made on march 27, 1996 in W.P. No. 431/22 and 1439/51.
appellants are challenging the order directing the Central Advisory Board
constituted under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 (for International Airports Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc.
the 'Act). The workers represented by the appellants were employed at Staff
Colony at Kalina Indian Airlines buildings owned by the Air India. Their case
is that they are employed as contract labour by the various employers on behalf
of the principal employer, namely, Air India. The Notification dated December 9, 1976 relates to the abolition of the contract labour engaged in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned by Air India. As a consequence, they are also
entitled to be appointed on regular basis. They relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Air India Statutory Corpn. etc. v. United Labour Union & Ors.
[1996 (9) SCALE 70]. Shri Singhvi, learned senior counsel contends that in view
of the above decision and in vies of the notification they are entitled to the
same benefit which was given to the employees who were directed to be regularised
in the above judgment. The High Court has not examined the matter in true
of directing Central Advisory Board to go into the question, the High Court
would go into and decide the matter in accordance with law. We decline to
express any opinion on merits since we are remitting the matter to the High
Court for reconsideration. We would, therefore, request the High Court to
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
appeals are, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
quo as on today shall continue.
C.A. ...@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4088-4093/97
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
view of the decision taken by this Court in Air India Statutory Corpn. v.
United Labour Union & Ors. [1996 (9) SCALE 70] since National Labour
Advisory Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act has not opined for
abolition of posts in which these workers employed on contract labour in the
Trolley Retrievers (W.P No. 1494/89), Loaders (W.P. No.1494/89), Bird Chasers
(W.P. No. 1263/91), Conveyor Belt Workers (W.P. Nos. 2641/92, 1256/96) Car-
parking Clerks (W.P. No. 2362/90) (Employed at International and National
Airports of Airport Authority of India), Electrical maintenance Workers, (W.P.
No. 433/92) and Civil appropriate course to be adopted by the High Court would
be to direct that the Board to examine the matters and then give necessary
advice to the Government of India for taking appropriate action under Section
appeals are accordingly dismissed but they will be subject to decision by the
Board. No costs. Status quo would continue. Those who were dismissed earlier
are directed to be reinstated.
@ S.L.P. (C) No. 13055/96 International Airports Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc. etc.
appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 498/87 dated February
28, 1996. The
controversy raised in this case is squarely Covered by the judgment of this
Court in Air India Statutory corporation etc. v. United labour union & Ors.
(9) SCALE 70]. Their contract was terminated in December 1983 and they
challenged the writ petition in 1987 and High Court, therefore was justified in
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of limitation. We find no force in
the contention. They worked for 12 years upto December 1983 and thereafter when
they were sought to be terminated they filed a complaint on December 18, 1933 under the Act against the
contractor. They obtained interim order from the competent authority
restraining the first respondent from terminating the contract of workers.
Before receipt thereof, they served the termination order dated December 19-20, 1933 and effected termination.
Consequently they filed a fresh application on December 22 1983. Therein they sought reinstatement. The High Court of
Bombay in the similar matter has held that since the notification applies only
to the Central Government and the State Government has not issued the
notification, the termination order was upheld.
the matter was initiated in the M.R.T.P. Act the Labour Court also took the same view. Under these circumstances, they
came to be filed. Thus, it could be seen that the Government have not
considered every matter. They have been agitating the rights in one form or the
other. As a consequence, they are entitled to the same benefit as was given in
the earlier appeals.
appeal is accordingly, allowed. They are entitled to be reinstated and have
their services regularised. No costs.
Nos. 8-1O/1997 in C.A. Nos 15532-34/96 I.As. are
Petition (C) Nos.235-237/97 No contempt in view of the above clarifications.