Madras High Court
V.Bhaskaran vs The Central Government Industrial on 1 June, 2023
Author: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
Bench: J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
W.P.No.17508 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008
1. V.Bhaskaran
2. V.Ramaraj
3. E.Gunasekaran
4. N.Arumugam
5. K.K.Prasad
6. K.Selvam
7. B.Ramesh
8. D.Fredrich
9. K.N.Santhosh Kumar
10. G.Gopal ...Petitioners Vs
1.The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Airports Director, International Airports Authority of India, (IAD) Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.
1/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Delight Engineers, No.6, Jolly Centre, 2nd Floor, Tilak Road, Santa Cruz West, Mumbai - 400 054.
4. Premier Technics, Mumbai, C/o. The Airport Director, International Airports Authority of India, (IAD) Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Award dated 26.09.2006 passed in I.D.No.381 of 2004 by the 1st respondent Tribunal and set aside the same and consequently hold that the petitioners are the direct labour of the 2nd respondent entitled to all benefits being granted to regular Aerobridge operators with all attendant benefits thereto, including monetary benefits.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.V.Arun
For P4, P5, P7, P9 & P10.
For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban, For R2.
R1 – Labour Court.
R3 & R4 - No appearance.
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 26.09.2006 in I.D.No.381/2004 passed by the first respondent Tribunal dismissing the I.D. filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:-
The petitioners were employed in the International Airport Authority of India as Aero Bridge Operators from 1989 onwards continuously. On the earlier occasion when the second respondent gave an internal advertisement in the Employment News 9-15, July 1994 inviting applications for the post of Aero Bridge Operators at the Chennai Airport and fearing that the respondents may recruit some one else as Aero Bridge Operators and in the process they may lose even the present job and feeling that their experience would go a waste, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.1878 of 1996 before this Court for a writ of Declaration to declare that the petitioners are the workers of the International Airports Authority of India from the date of joining and to grant them the benefits applicable to the employees of the same cadre. On 3/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22.2.1996, while admitting the writ petition, this Court granted an interim order and the said interim order continued till the pendency of the said writ petition.
The respondents therein have filed counter contending that the petitioners are contract workers. This Court, by an order dated 23.02.2004, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India's case, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1 disposed of the writ petition holding that such disputed question of facts can be gone into by the Industrial Tribunal and directed the respondents to retain the petitioner in service till the conclusion of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal on 18.05.2004 and it was taken on file and numbered as I.D.No.381 of 2004. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award on 28.09.2008 dismissing the claim of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the above award, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that out of 10 petitioners only 5 are alive at present and many of the petitioners have been 4/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis working from 1989 onwards continuously. When the second respondent gave an internal advertisement in the Employment News 9-15, July, 1994, inviting applications for the post of Aero Bridge Operators at the Chennai Airport, the petitioners feared that the first respondent may recruit some one else as Aero Bridge Operators and in the process they may lose even the present job and all the years of experience would go a waste. The above facts were stated in the claim statement by the petitioners before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.381/2004. The learned counsel referred to the prayer in the claim petition and the same is extracted hereunder:-
" The Tribunal may be pleased to hold that the contract with the 2nd and 3rd respondents is only sham and nominal and the petitioners are really the employees of the 1st respondent and that they are entitled to the salary and benefits given to their counterparts in Delhi and Bombay Airports by the first respondent and direct the first respondent to absorb them in the regular cadre and fix them on a regular scale giving the benefits of figment and increments."5/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the counter statement filed by the first respondent before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
"3. At the time of establishment of Aero Bridge, it became necessary to engage persons to operate the Aero-Bridge, but in view of the fact that no technically competent persons were available to operate the Aero-Bridge, it was decided to operate the Aero-Bridge on contract basis and accordingly a notice was issued inviting tenders from reputed Aero-Bridge Operators for the purpose of operating the Aero-Bridge as well as maintaining electrical, mechanical and electro-mechanical aspects of the Aero-Bridge.
4. .......At that time, there was not a single firm or agency in the entire South India, which had full knowledge of Aero- Bridge operation and maintenance, since the Chennai Airport was the first to get an Aero Bridge in the South. Accordingly, the contract was entered into with effect from 28.10.1996. At that time there were few flights operating from Madras Airport and therefore only 4 persons were working under the contract.6/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis In course of time, these 4 persons have been increased to 8 persons.
10. It is denied that in Bombay and Delhi direct labour is being employed. In any event, the situation in Bombay and Delhi is totally different from the situation in Madras. In fact, initially as far as the Madras Airport is concerned, the Airport Authority has made efforts to obtain people from the Employment Exchange or the open market for operation and maintenance of the aero bridges. Due to lack of qualified persons, the Management has taken a policy decision that an integrated contract should be given to a technically competent person for the purpose of operating the Aero Bridges. Mere operation of the Aero Bridges is not sufficient to confer the qualifications as set out in the job specifications. For example, on 07.10.1996 due to incompetent handling of the Aero Bridges, a damage was caused to the Indian Airlines air-craft for which the Airport Authority was asked to pay Rs.36 Lakhs. It is therefore submitted that the question of employment of direct labour in a post like the Aero Bridge operator is a mater of policy and is governed by the facts and circumstances obtaining at Madras and therefore, it is not possible for the management to engage workmen on direct basis.7/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The 1st respondent has control over the workmen.
In fact, the Airport Authority does not have any disciplinary control over the workmen or supervision over the workmen. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents have their own supervisors. It is stoutly denied that the Airport Authority is paying salary to the workmen but on the other hand the contract fee is given to the Delite Engineers and Premier Technics and it is only those firms that they are paying salary to the workmen. It is denied that the petitioners are the employees of the first respondent/ the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court."
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court Section 12 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and the same is extracted hereunder:-
"(aa) establish airports, or assist in the establishment of private airports by rendering such technical, financial or other assistance which the Central Government may consider necessary for such purpose
(k) develop and provide consultancy, construction or management services, and undertake operations in India and abroad in relation to airports, air-navigation services, ground aids and safety services or any facilities thereat."8/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further referred to the office order dated June 09, 1992 and the same is extracted hereunder;- 9/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the cross examination of Deputy General Manager (Law), in which he has stated that “I do not know in Mumbai and Delhi whether Aero Bridge Operate is done by contract workers or regular workers. In the counter statement in para 10 I have stated that in Mumbai and New Delhi no direct labour is employed in the said Airports. In the counter affidavit filed in the W.P. in para 10 we have stated that "it is denied that in Mumbai and Delhi contract labour is employed and we have no control over the petitioners even in case of any defects in Aero Bridge maintenance.”
8. The learned counsel also referred to the conduct certificate issued by the Airports Authority to one of the workers. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were the employees of the International Airports Authority of India and they were under the direct control and supervision of the International Airports Authority of India. Hence, they are not contract workers and prays for setting aside the award passed by the first respondent Central 10/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in I.D.No.381 of 2004 dated 26.09.2006.
9. The counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent on 18.02.2013. It is submitted that the third and fourth respondents are the contractors and the second respondent is the principle employer. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:-
“8. As far as Chennai Airport is concerned, the order contemplates supply of 13 passengers Boarding Bridges out of which 7 are for the Domestic Terminal and 6 for the International Terminals. The contract itself is for Designing, Supplying, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of the Passenger Boarding Bridges. The contract also contemplates an all-inclusive maintenance contract which obligates the supplier even to provide manpower for operation of the equipment since it is highly specialized modern equipment. Clause 6 and 7 of the Supply Order read as follows:
6. All Inclusive Maintenance Contractor As per Tender document Clause No.6.0 (Page-11/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis AICMC6), after completion of SITC work (under SOQ-1) & SOQ-2), you shall have to enter into a supplementary agreement for SOQ-3 with Assistant General Manager Engineer (E)/Sr. Manager Engg. (E), Engineer-in- Charge of Maintenance at the respective Airports for a period of 07 years (02 years during warrantee period and 05 years thereafter) at quoted cost as given under abstract of cost and schedule of quantities enclosed.
7. You are requested to comply with the provision of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 and Contract Labour (Regulator & Abolition) Central Rules 1971 and Minimum Wages Act and rules thereof Central and State Governments in India.
9. The Schedule to the Supply Order viz. SOQ 3 contemplates one Aero Bridge operator per equipment per shift and there are 3 shifts per day. Once this equipment is commissioned, the existing Aero Bridge will be dismissed.”
10. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there will be no requirement to continue with the contract which is the subject matter of the present writ petition and also there will be no requirement for the 12/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis personnel who are now being supplied by the 3rd respondent viz. Delight Engineers, Mumbai.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that the workmen employed by the third respondent do not have the required qualification and skill or experience to operate the new Aero Bridges and therefore unless the supplier is permitted to bring his own trained personnel, the entire operation of the Airport will be affected.
12. The learned counsel further relied on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
"6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered a number of judgments in the above judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reported in Contract Labour Act in 2019 Vol 13 SCC Page 82 and in this Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed all the previous judgments and posted upon the following six questions with regard to employer and employee relationship and to find out each and every case of the facts and circumstances.13/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. Who appoints the workers
2. Who pays the salary/remuneration
3. Who has the authority to dismiss
4. Who can take disciplinary action
5. Whether there is continuity of service and
6. Extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.
8. With regard to Question No.1, it is specifically stated in Para 14 of the Award, the Industrial Tribunal, specifically stated that the petitioners have neither been appointed nor issued any order of Appointment and hence the plea which was taken by the petitioners have been appointed by AA1 is false.
9. With regard to the question No.2, it is admitted fact that the salary was paid only by the contractor and not by AA! and no dispute was raised by the petitioners with regard to this question.
10. With regard to the question No.3, the petitioners have not raised any dispute that who has got the power to dismiss the petitioners.
11. With regard to the question Nos.4 and 6, after going through the Oral and documentary evidences, the 14/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Industrial Tribunal rendered a finding that in paragraph 13, there is absolutely no control and supervision by the AA1 and no disciplinary proceeding was taken by the AA1 against any of the petitioners."
13. The learned counsel for the second respondent drew the attention of this Court to their contention/stand taken by them, which is reflected in the award and the same is extracted hereunder:-
"No doubt, the petitioner has produced a copy of leave letter, but it is not clinchingly establish that leave was sanctioned by the Airports Authority of India, on the other hand, no document was produced by the petitioner to substantiate their claim that Airports Authority of India has exercised supervision and control over the petitioners. Though the petitioners have produced Ex.W12 to show that disciplinary action was taken against one of the petitioners, there is no proof to show that questions were asked by the officers of the Airport Authority of India or enquiry was conducted by the officers of Airport Authority of India. As per clause in contract agreement, the contractor alone through his supervisor has to make entries in the attendance register and 15/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the initials are made by the officials of the 1st respondent/Management, only to verify that they have worked in the respondent premises and to ascertain the number of days they have worked in a month for calculating wages to the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners wanted to take advantage of the initials made by the officials in the registers for the purpose of this case and it is a vague inference to be drawn in the circumstances of the case and it will no way prove that the 1st respondent has exercised control and supervision over the petitioners."
"Though they have stated that they have been appointed by the 1st Respondent/Management, no appointment order was produced by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the plea that they have been appointed by the 1st respondent/Management is only a false one. Since the petitioners are contract employees, they cannot pray for regularisation."
"Furthermore, as a subsequent development, one of the petitioners out of 12 petitioners now not working in Aero Bridge operation, on the other hand, he is now working in conveyor belt under the same contractor. These facts clearly establish the fact that petitioners are only contract labourers 16/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis employed by 2nd and 3rd respondents and they are not employed by the 1st respondent."
14. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the agreement signed between the second respondent and the contractor in which, it has been stated as under:-
"(g) Contractor's Representative Agent and Workmen:
Contractor shall only employ Indian Nationals and verify the best of their ability their antecedents and loyalty are employing them on work. The Contractor shall furnish name of the qualified and authorised representative of firm to the Engineer-in-Charge and any written order of instructions given to the representative shall be deemed to have been given to the contractor."
15. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs Ramchandran and Others in C.A.Nos.8446 to 8447 of 2022 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
17/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis "4.7. In the case of International Airport of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union and Anr. (supra), after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. (supra), it has been observed and held by this Court that where there is no abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, but the contract labour contends that the contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is purely under the ID Act. It is further observed that the industrial adjudicator can grant the relief sought if it finds that the contract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage to deny employment benefits to the employee and that there is in fact a direct employment, by applying test like:
who pays the salary; who has the power to remove/dismiss from service or initiate disciplinary action; who can tell the employee the way in which the work should be done, in short, who has direct control over the employee. It is further observed that where there is no notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in the industrial adjudication that the contract was a sham/nominal and camouflage, then the question of directing the principal employer to absorb or regularise the 18/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis services of the contract labour does not arise. It has further been observed in paragraphs 38 and 39 as under:-
38. The tests that applied to find out whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor may not automatically apply in finding out whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere camouflage. for example, if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principle employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him.
But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, 19/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis worker being the employee of the contractor, the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor as he decides where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to what conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor." 4.8 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and in the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and in the absence of any allegations and/or findings that the contract was sham and camouflage, both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in reinstating the contesting respondents and directing the appellant-principal employer to absorb them as their employees. The parties shall be governed by the CLRA Act and relief, if any, could have been granted under the provisions of the CLRA Act and not under the MPIR.
20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 82 and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
"23. From this judgement in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case, it is clear that Test No.1 is not met on the facts of this case as the contractor pays the workmen their wages. Secondly, the principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise the work of the employee merely because he directs the workmen of the contractor "what to do" after the contractor assigns/allots the employee to the principal employer. This is precisely what para 12 of Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case explains as being supervision and control of the principal employer that is secondary in nature, as such control is exercised only after such workman has been assigned to the principal employer to do a particular work.
24. We may hasten to add that this view of the law has been reiterated in Balwant Rai Saluja Vs. Air India Ltd, as follows:21/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis "65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer employee relationship would include, inter alia:
(i) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.
As regards extent of control and supervision, we have already taken note of the observations in Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case, International Airport Authority of India case and Nalco case."
17. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
22/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. In this case, the International Airport Division of Airports Authority of India controls the Chennai Airport consisting of Anna International Terminal and the Kamaraj Domestic Terminal. In the year 1985, an Aero- Bridge was established in the Kamaraj Domestic Terminal and in 1987 an Aero-Bridge was established in the Anna International Terminal. At the time of establishment of the Aero-Bridge and in view of the fact that no technically competent persons were available to operate the Aero-Bridge, it was decided to operate the Aero-Bridge on contract basis and, accordingly, a notice was issued inviting tenders from reputed Aero-Bridge Operators for the purpose of operating the Aero-Bridge as well as maintaining electrical, mechanical and electro-mechanical aspects of the Aero-Bridge. At that time, there was no single firm or agency in the entire South India, which had full knowledge of Aero-Bridge operation and maintenance, as the Chennai Airport was the first to get an Aero-Bridge in the South India. In response to the Advertisement, one Delite Engineers, Mumbai, the 3rd respondent herein submitted an application and in consideration of the same, it was decided to award the contract to the 3rd 23/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent in respect of the Kamaraj Domestic Terminal. Accordingly, the contract was entered into with effect from 28.10.1986. Thereafter, in 1987 the contract for the Anna International Terminal was also advertised and in response to the said advertisement, one Premier Technics (4th Respondent) applied and on consideration of the said application, the contract was awarded to the said firm with effect from 26.04.1989. At present, there are 16 persons working, 8 under Delite Engineers, the 3rd respondent, and 8 under Premier Technics, the 4th respondent and the present dispute is concerned with the 12 persons out of the 16 persons.
19. On perusal of the records, it is crystal clear and evident that the petitioners were the contract workers who have been under the control of the third and fourth respondents and they have own supervisors and the second respondent has no control over the workmen. In fact, the Airports Authority does not have any disciplinary control over the workmen or supervision over the workmen. The salary is also not paid by the second respondent and on the other hand, the contract fee was given to the third and fourth respondents 24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis namely Delite Engineers and Premier Technics and it is only those respondents were paying salary to the workmen. The petitioners also admitted that they do not have the adequate qualification. Hence, they did not respond and apply to the advertisement which was issued by the International Airports Authority of India for appointment to the post of Aero Bridge Operators. In this case, the Aero Bridge was not operated by the Airports Authority of India directly, but only through contractors and the petitioners are not the employees of the second respondent. On the other hand, they are the employees of the contractors. Even though the petitioners have been working from 1989 onwards continuously, they are only the employees of the contractors and not the second respondent Airports Authority of India. No doubt, the petitioners have produced Ex.W1 office order issued by the Airports Director. However, by relying upon Ex.W1, it cannot be said that the petitioners are employed directly under the Airports Authority of India and the fact remains that Ex.W1 is an internal correspondence.
25/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have also produced a copy of leave letter, but the same are not clinchingly establish that leave was sanctioned by the Airports Authority of India. On the other hand, no document was produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim that the Airports Authority of India has exercised supervision and control over the petitioners. Though the petitioners have produced Ex.W12 to show that disciplinary action was taken against one of the petitioners, there is no proof to show that questions were asked by the officers of the Airport Authority of India or enquiry was conducted by the officers of Airport Authority of India. As per the clause in contract agreement, the contractor alone through his supervisor has to make entries in the attendance register and the initials are made by the officials of the 2nd respondent/Management only to verify that they have worked in the respondent premises and to ascertain the number of days they have worked in a month for calculating wages to the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners cannot take the advantage of the initials made by the officials in the registers for the purpose of this case and it is a vague inference to be drawn in the circumstances of the case and it will no way prove that the 2nd respondent has 26/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis exercised control and supervision over the petitioners. Though the petitioners have stated that they have been appointed by the 2nd Respondent/Management, no appointment order was produced by the petitioners.
21. In the office order dated June 9, 1992 issued by the second respondent, it has been stated that the door should be fully kept locked and secured by Aero bridge Operator duly checked by the concerned Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Executive Engineer (Electrical) periodically. Any deviation or lack will be viewed seriously, including disciplinary action against the concerned official, which does not mean that the petitioners are under the control of the Airports Authority of India or of the employees of the Airports Authority of India. The petitioners were engaged by the second respondent Airports Authority of India to maintain and operate the Aero Bridges in the Airport and since they are engaged by the second respondent, they will be having control over the petitioners/contract workers. The second respondent has not appointed or recruited the petitioners as Aero Bridge Operators and it is only the third and fourth respondents respectively have engaged the petitioners. 27/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22. Section 12 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 is extracted hereunder:-
"(aa) establish airports, or assist in the establishment of private airports by rendering such technical, financial or other assistance which the Central Government may consider necessary for such purpose
(k) develop and provide consultancy, construction or management services, and undertake operations in India and abroad in relation to airports, air-navigation services, ground aids and safety services or any facilities thereat."
23. In the light of Section 12 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, it does not mean that the petitioners are employees of the second respondent Airports Authority of India.
24. The findings of the Labour Court is extracted hereunder:-
"15. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent because though the petitioners 28/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis alleged that it is a statutory duty on the part of the 1st Respondent/Management to maintain Aero Bridges in the airport, it is not established by the petitioner that it is a statutory duty cast upon the 1st respondent. Secondly, though the petitioners alleged that it is an unfair labour practice exercised by the Respondent/Management against the petitioners, it is clear from the evidence that Central Govt. has not prohibited by any notification with regard to contract labourers for the employment of aero bridge operation. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that aero bridge operation must be done by 1st Respondent/Management namely Airport Authority of India and it can very well be given to contract labourers. Lastly, from the evidence and also from records, it is not established that the contract entered into between the 1st Respondent and 2nd & 3rd Respondents are sham and nominal. Under such circumstances, I find the Petitioners are only contract labourers and their request for regularisation in services of 1st Respondent/Management is not justified.29/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. In view of my foregoing findings that the petitioners are only contract labourers and their request for regularisation is not justified, I find the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this dispute. No costs."
25. It is well settled law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the award/findings of the Labour Court/Tribunal unless it is perverse, arbitrary and error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case on hand, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, based on the oral and documentary evidence, has categorically come to a conclusion that the petitioners are only contract labourers and their request for regularisation in service of the second respondent/Management is not justified. This Court is of the firm view that the said finding arrived at by the Labour Court is perfectly correct. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or perversity in the award passed by the Tribunal/Labour Court in I.D.No.381/2004 dated 26.09.2006 and, therefore, the same is hereby confirmed. 30/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.06.2023 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking Order kmm To
1.The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep. by its Presiding Officer, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Airports Director, International Airports Authority of India, (IAD) Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.
3. Delight Engineers, No.6, Jolly Centre, 2nd Floor, Tilak Road, Santa Cruz West, Mumbai - 400 054.
4. Premier Technics, Mumbai, C/o. The Airport Director, International Airports Authority of India, (IAD) Chennai Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.
31/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
kmm W.P.No.17508 of 2008 01.06.2023 32/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis