International Airport Authority Employees Union & ANR Vs. International
Airports Authority of India & Ors [2000] INSC 631 (8 December 2000)
S.R.Babu,
S.N.Variava
L.I.T.J
RAJENDRA
BABU, J. :
In
these matters we are concerned with I.A. Nos. 7-9 of 1999 in Civil Appeals Nos.
2987-2989 of 1997. In these applications common relief sought for by the
applicants is that they are also covered by the judgment dated 06.12.1996 and
the consequent orders made on 11.04.1997 passed in these appeals. The workmen
in respect of whom these applications are made are Sweepers in the Parking
Areas in the International Airport and National Airport. Civil Appeals Nos. 2987-2989 of 1997 were disposed of on
11.4.1997 holding that on the abolition of the contract labour system Sweepers
in such Airports are entitled to be regularised in service as indicated
therein. The cause for these applications is that the respondents are
contesting the entitlement of the applicants for regularisation in service.
The
stand of the respondents is that these applicants are Sweepers employed in the
parking areas of the Airports which does not form part of the building and the
notification dated December 9, 1976 does not cover such employees inasmuch as
the said notification has prohibited employment of contract labour for
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of building owned or occupied by the
establishment.
Further
objection to the claim of the applicants is that the Parking Areas are allotted
to different contractors who are obliged to keep areas clean. The Sweepers with
whom we are concerned in these interlocutory applications work in the car parks
in the Santacruz and Sahar Airports at Mumbai and they are six in number. It is difficult to
conceive of the airport being functional without a car park and that the car
park is not a part of the building. The Airport includes not only landing and
taking off areas for the aircrafts, the run ways and aircraft maintenance
areas, but also passenger facilities. Passenger facilities would certainly
include car parking and it cannot be said that car parking is not a part of the
building. Building in its ordinary sense would include appurtenances which form
thereof unless it be that expression building is to be understood as was done
by Merchant of Venice with reference to pound of flesh.
Therefore,
we cannot agree with the stand of the respondents. Next objection is that there
is an agreement with the contractors who are to maintain the car parking areas
and they have an obligation to maintain proper cleanliness in the car parking
areas and the expenditure in regard to the same will have to be borne by the
licensee.
Inasmuch
as the notification issued under the Contract Labour (Abolition &
Regulation) Act, 1970 covers the Sweepers employed in respect of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishment, it is unnecessary to examine this
aspect of the matter. Inevitable conclusion is that the judgment rendered in
Civil Appeals Nos. 2987-2989 of 1997 following the decisions in Air India
Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour Union & Ors., etc., 1996 (9)
SCALE 70, and Masih Charan & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (C ) No. 219 of 1995 dated March 10, 1997, is applicable to these workmen
also.
We
clarify that position and allow the applications accordingly.
Back