Civil Appeal No. ... of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 369 of 2010) and Civil Appeal No. of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 377 of 2010). Case: 1. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd., 2. Airport Authority of India Vs 1. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1814 of 2010), Civil Appeal No. of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10647 of 2010) and Civil Appeal Nos. of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9757-9758 of 2010)], 2. Indira Gandhi Airport TDI Karamchari Union and Ors., [Alongwith Civil Appeal No. of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1713 of 2010)]. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. ... of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 369 of 2010) and Civil Appeal No. of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 377 of 2010) |
| Counsel | For Appearing Parties: P.P. Malhotra, ASG, R.F. Nariman, A. M. Singhvi, Sudhir Chandra, Chander Udai Singh, Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advs., Atul Sharma, Saket Singh, Milanka Chaudhary, Sarojanand Jha, Sunil Fernandes, Atul Sharma, Abhishek Sharma, Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, Ratna Dhingra, Mudit Sharma, Bina Gupta, Tariq Adeed, Alin Mahanta, Divya ... |
| Judges | Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, JJ. |
| Issue | Air Traffic Rules; Aircraft Rules - Rule 134; Airport Authority of India Act, 1994 - Section 1(3), 3, 10(1), 12, 12A and 12A(1); Airports Authority of India Act, 1971; Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 - Section 3A; Companies Act, 1956; Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961; Dock Workers (... |
| Citation | JT 2011 (10) SC 649 , 2011 (10) SCALE 478 |
| Judgement Date | September 15, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
-
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
-
These appeals emanate from the judgment of the High Court of Delhi delivered in LPA No. 38 of 2007, LPA No. 1065 of 2007, Writ Petition (C) No. 139 of 2008 and Writ Petition (C) No. 6763 of 2008 on December 18, 2009.
-
The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Notification dated 26th July, 2004 issued by the Central Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'CLRAA') prohibiting employment of contract labour of trolley retrievals in the establishment of the Airport Authority of India (for short, 'AAI') at the Indira Gandhi International Airport and Domestic Airport at Delhi would be applicable to the Delhi International Airport Private Limited (for short, 'DIAL') or not?
-
This judgment would decide these appeals preferred before this Court against the following Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions decided by the High Court:
-
Indira Gandhi International Airport TDI Karamchari Union v. Union of India and Ors. - LPA No. 38 of 2007
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28th November, 2006 in Writ Petition (C) No. 15156 of 2006. The workers' Union had preferred the writ petition for seeking implementation of the Notification of prohibition dated 26th July, 2004 and for absorption in service amongst other things. The learned Single Judge took notice of the fact that from 4th April, 2006 a new private entity, DIAL had taken over the Airports (Domestic and International). Hence at the airport, there was no longer any establishment of AAI existing but a new establishment of DIAL was operating due to which the notification dated 26th July, 2004, prohibiting the engagement of contract labour in trolley retrieval activity in the establishment of AAI at the Delhi Airports could not automatically apply to the new entity, DIAL and a new notification by the appropriate government would have to be issued.
-
Union of India v. Indira Gandhi International Airport TDI Karamchari Union - LPA No. 1065 of 2007
This Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the Union of India against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 28th November, 2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 15156 of 2008 on a very limited point of certain observation in the judgment.
-
Airports Authority of India v. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 6763 of 2008
AAI after getting permission of the High Powered Committee to go ahead with the litigation challenged the notification dated 26th July, 2004 by filing the said writ petition.
-
Delhi International Airports P. Ltd. v. Union of India Writ Petition (C) No. 139 of 2008
DIAL had preferred this writ petition challenging the order of the Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India dated 24th September, 2007 by which the Central Government was held to be the 'appropriate government' for DIAL for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "ID Act") and CLRAA. The order dated 22nd November, 2007 of Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi by which all documents concerning DIAL were directed to be shifted to the Central Government machinery was also impugned.
-
-
Both the writ petitions of AAI and DIAL were heard and disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court along with these LP As by the impugned judgment.
BRIEF FACTS:
-
136 workers were employed by the contractor M/s. TDI International Pvt. Ltd. to do the work of trolley retrieving at the Domestic and at the International Airport at Delhi in the year 1992. In view of the perennial nature of the work, the workmen approached the Contract Labour Court for abolition of contract labour system and for their absorption as regular employees. AAI came into force merging the International Airport Authority Act, 1971 and the National Airport Authority Act, 1985. On 26th July, 2004 the Central Government accepted the recommendations of the Contract Labour Court and issued notification dated 26th July, 2004 abolishing the contract labour system.
-
This notification was challenged by AAI before the High Court of Delhi. Taking note of the ONGC judgment reported in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v. Collector of Central Excise 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 432 the High Court vide judgment dated 3rd February, 2005 held that the present proceedings cannot be proceeded with till the matter is resolved by the High Powered Committee (HPC). Accordingly, the matter went to the HPC and the notification was not given effect to.
-
Meanwhile, 136 workers who were engaged as Trolley retrievers by the contractor M/s. TDI International Private Limited working at the airport since 1992 were removed from service on 5th December, 2003 as the contract of M/s. TDI International Private Limited had come to an end and a new contractor Sindhu Holdings came in its place. These 136 members filed Writ Petition No. 15156 of 2006 before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi praying for their absorption in service as regular employees and for implementation of the notification dated 26th July, 2004.
-
The learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties including DIAL vide judgment dated 28th November, 2006 held that the establishment of AAI is no longer in existence and has changed. As such, the notification dated 26th July, 2004 cannot be applied to the new entity DIAL. The appropriate government shall have to issue a fresh notification. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the said 136 workers stood dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
-
Indira Gandhi International Airport TDI Karamchari Union preferred LPA No. 38 of 2007 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Union of India also preferred LPA No. 1065 of 2007 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
-
During the pendency of these LP As, an order dated 24th September, 2007 was passed by the Chief Labour Commissioner, Government of India holding that the appropriate government for DIAL is the Central Government. By order dated 22nd November, 2007 the documents and file relating to DIAL were sent to the Central Government. These orders were challenged by DIAL in Writ Petition (C) No. 139 of 2008. After getting the permission, AAI filed another Writ Petition (C) No. 6763 of 2008 challenging the said notification on merit. The Division Bench of the High Court heard all these matters together and passed the impugned order of 18th December, 2009.
-
The review petition was preferred by the Union of India which was decided on 12th March, 2010 by the High Court modifying para 61 of the impugned judgment. Against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, two appeals were preferred by DIAL and three by AAI and one by the Indira Gandhi International Airport TDI Karamchari Union. In these appeals, two broad issues that arise are:
-
Who is the appropriate government for DIAL under the CLRAA and ID Act? This is the subject matter of SLP (C) No. 369 of 2010 filed by DIAL.
-
Whether the notification dated 26th July, 2004 is applicable to DIAL as it is issued by the Central Government which is not the appropriate government for DIAL and secondly whether the notification that applies to the 'establishment of AAI' will be applicable to the 'establishment of DIAL' which only came into existence on 4th April, 2006? This is the subject matter of SLP (C) No. 377 of 2010 filed by DIAL.
-
-
We deem it appropriate to deal with the basic objects and reasons of passing the CLRAA. This Act was enacted with a view to abolish the contract labour under certain circumstances and to provide for better conditions of service to the labour. The business of providing contract labour is regulated as the contractor is required to obtain a licence and the principal employer is not entitled to engage a contractor without obtaining registration. The rules also contain detailed provisions to carry out the purposes of the Act. It is significant to note that the 1970 Act does not create any machinery or forum for the adjudication of any dispute arising between the contract labour and the principal employer of the contractor.
-
The object of the Act was dealt with by this Court in the judgment of Gammon India Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1974) 1 SCC 596 which reads as under:
The Act was passed to prevent the exploitation of contract labour and also to introduce better conditions of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition of contract labour. The underlying policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and practicable, and where it cannot be abolished altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working conditions of the contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and provision of essential amenities. That is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of work and contemplates progressive abolition to be extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act deals with abolition while the rest of the Act deals mainly with regulation. The dominant idea of the Section 10 of the Act is to find out whether contract labour is necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation which is carried on in the establishment.
-
The Central Government will be the appropriate government under CLRRA for any establishment for whom the Central Government is the appropriate government under the ID Act. The main question arises for adjudication is whether the Central Government is the appropriate government for DIAL under the ID Act? Section 2(a) of the ID Act deals with the appropriate government which reads as under:
-
In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,--
(a) "appropriate government" means--
(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or...
To continue reading
Request your trial