Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL 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.
These 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.
Consequent 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.
Shri Singhvi 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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
with effect 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 benefits.
However, 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.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
C.A @ S.L.P. (C) NO. 14116/96
Leave granted.
This 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].
Therefore, 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.
Therefore, the High Court is requested to consider the case
afresh.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
C.A...... @ S.L.P. (C) No. 13533/96 & 19232/96
leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. ;
These 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.
The 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.
etc.
short 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 perspective.
Instead of directing Central Advisory Board to go into the
question, the High Court would go into and decide the matter
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
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.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
Status quo as on today shall continue.
C.A. ...@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4088-4093/97
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
In 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 10.
The 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.
C.A. . @ S.L.P. (C) No. 13055/96
International Airports Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc.
etc.
Leave granted.
This 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.
[1996 (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.
When 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.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed. They are entitled
to be reinstated and have their services regularised. No
costs.
I.A. Nos. 8-1O/1997 in C.A. Nos 15532-34/96
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
I.As. are dismissed.
Contempt Petition (C) Nos.235-237/97
No contempt in view of the above clarifications.