Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2987-2989 1997
PETITIONER:
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/2000
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.