Kerala High Court
Ai Airport Services Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 1
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.4050 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD
2ND FLOOR, JANVILLA CITY CENTRE, ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA,
VELLAYAMBALAM-SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010
2 DEEPA R
MANAGER-HR/ADMIN 2ND FLOOR, JANVILLA CITY CENTRE,
ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA, VELLAYAMBALAM-SASTHAMANGALAM
ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICEDR CENTRAL
TRIVANDRUM, OFFICER OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) UPPALAM ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
OTHER PRESENT:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 2
2024:KER:71107
SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR PETITIONER
SRI.TULASI PANICKER, CGC, SRI.RENJITH TR, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2217/2017, 2851/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 3
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2217 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.4051 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD
2ND FLOOR, JANVILA CITY CENTRE, ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA
VELLAYAMBALAM- SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM PO
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER HR/ADM.
2 DEEPA R
MANAGER-HR/ADMIN, 2ND FLOOR, JANVILA CITY CENTRE,
ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA VELLAYAMBALAM- SASTHAMANGALAM
ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010,
KERALA
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CENTRAL
TRIVANDRUM OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL) UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
SRI.RENJITH TR,SR.PP, SRI.SUVIN R MENON, CGC
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 4
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2851 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.3454 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/S:
BIRD WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES(P)LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOURAV
BHATIA,AIRLINE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, COCHIN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERRY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
S.SHYAM
KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE
REPRESENTED BY THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER(CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN,OLIMUGAL,
KAKKANADU, COCHIN.682 030.
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI.110 001.
BY ADVS.
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL, SRI.RENJITH TR,SR.PP
SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 5
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4463 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.1405 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AIR INDIA
AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.), REPRESENTED BY MR.
THAMILARASU, TERMINAL MANAGER
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COCHIN – 683111,
KERALA, PIN - 683111
2 MR. ASWINI SHARMA
AGED 68 YEARS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
GSD BUILDING, AIR INDIA COMPLEX TERMINAL 2, IGI
AIRPORT NEW DELHI - 110037, PIN - 110037
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
K.JOHN MATHAI
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
– 682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 6
2024:KER:71107
SRI.RENJITH TR, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 7
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4582 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.1404 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AIR INDIA
AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.) REPRESENTED BY MR.
THAMILARASU, TERMINAL MANAGER
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COCHIN – 683111,
KERALA, PIN - 683111
2 MR. ASWINI SHARMA
AGED 68 YEARS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
GSD BUILDING, AIR INDIA COMPLEX TERMINAL 2, IGI
AIRPORT NEW DELHI - 110037, PIN - 110037
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 8
2024:KER:71107
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ NR, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 9
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6537 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.89 OF 2022 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY CH RAMBABU REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, GSD
BUILDING AIR INDIA COMPLEX, TERMINAL 2, IGI AIRPORT
NEW DELHI - 110037\, PIN - 110037
2 MR. MANOJ TV
AGED 50 YEARS
SR. MANAGER M/S AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT AIRPORT PO
KARIPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KERALA – 673647,
PIN - 673647
3 MR. SURYA PRAKASH TRIPATHI
AGED 50 YEARS
AGM-CH, AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.) HR
DEPARTMENT, AI UNITY COMPLEX PALLAVARAM CANTONMENT,
CHENNAI – 600043, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600043
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 10
2024:KER:71107
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
– 682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
SRI.RENJITH TR, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 11
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6546 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.90 OF 2022 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY CH RAMBABU REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, GSD
BUILDING AIR INDIA COMPLEX, TERMINAL 2, IGI AIRPORT
NEW DELHI - 110037, PIN - 110037
2 MR. MANOJ TV
AGED 50 YEARS
SR. MANAGER M/S AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT AIRPORT PO
KARIPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KERALA – 673647,
PIN - 673647
3 MR. SURYA PRAKASH TRIPATHI
AGED 50 YEARS
AGM-CH, AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.) HR
DEPARTMENT, AI UNITY COMPLEX PALLAVARAM CANTONMENT,
CHENNAI – 600043, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600043
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 12
2024:KER:71107
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN;
682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ NR,PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 13
2024:KER:71107
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2215, 2217, 2851 of 2017
and 4463, 4582, 6537 & 6546 of 2022
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2024
ORDER
These Criminal Miscellaneous cases are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these Criminal Miscellaneous cases by a common order.
2. It is conceded by both sides that the point raised in these cases are similar and the legal issue raised is also the same. Hence, I am disposing of these Criminal Miscellaneous cases by a common order.
3. I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. No. 2215/2017 first. The petitioners herein are arrayed as 1 st accused and 2nd accused in ST No. 4050/2016, which is pending now before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under secs. 12(1) of CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 14 2024:KER:71107 the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'Act') and Rule 25(2)(viii) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (for short 'Rules'). A perusal of Annexure-A complaint would show that the allegation therein are purportedly based on an inspection conducted by the 2nd respondent on 14.07.2016. Vide inspection report, the 2 nd respondent has alleged that the 1 st petitioner was employing contract labour in airport services in ground handling and cargo handling to various airlines at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport without obtaining licence. Vide the aforementioned report, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioners to rectify the irregularities and report compliance to the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). According to the petitioners, the ground handling activities undertaken by the petitioners does not come under the purview of the Act and Rules. Hence, it is alleged that the offence is not attracted. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed.
4. Heard Sr. Counsel, Adv. E.K.Nandakumar assisted by his retaining counsel and also Adv. S.Shyam, who CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 15 2024:KER:71107 appeared for the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2851/2017.
5. The main contention of the petitioners is that as per Sec.42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the authority is empowered to make regulations. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, Airport Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (for short '2007 Regulations') was framed. Regulation 3 of the 2007 Regulations grant discretion to the carriers to carry out ground handling activities at metropolitan airports, namely, the airports located at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad by engaging the services of the authorities mentioned in 2007 Regulations. Regulation 3(2) further clarifies that for all other airports, excluding metropolitan airports, self handling may also be permitted to the airlines, excluding foreign airlines, in addition to the entities specified in Regulation 3(1). It is also submitted that all foreign carriers can only undertake ground handling activities through the modes prescribed in Regulation 3 of the 2007 Regulations. Hence, it is submitted that the 1 st petitioner CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 16 2024:KER:71107 falls within the category of "subsidiary companies of the national carrier, that is, National Aviation Company of India Limited (now Air India Ltd.) or its joint ventures specialized in ground handling services" being a joint venture between Air India Limited, India's national carrier, and SATS Limited. Annexure-C is produced to show that Chairman, Airport Authority of India was informed that the 1st petitioner would be carrying out ground handling functions at Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi airports in a phased manner. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner provides services to the carriers. These services are inclusive of the training provided to its employees, uniforms for the employees and equipments to perform ground handling activities. According to the petitioners, the contracts entered into with the airlines are not labour contract for providing manpower to the customer and therefore, do not attract the provisions. The following points are raised by the petitioners to contend that the Act and Rules are not applicable to the 1st petitioner.
"(a) The 1st Petitioner does not fall within the definition of a contractor under the Act inasmuch as it has not undertaken to produce "a given result" through contract labour. As stated CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 17 2024:KER:71107 above, the 1 st Petitioner provides services to the carriers including training, uniforms and equipments to perform ground handling activities.
(b) The contracts entered into between the 1st Petitioner and the carriers are on a principal to principal basis having been clearly authorized under the 2007 Regulations. As already enumerated above, the 2007 Regulations authorize the Petitioners to enter into a contract for ground handling activities with the carriers. Thus, there is a specific legal and statutory sanction given to the Petitioners to enter into a contract for providing ground handling services and therefore, they are clearly excluded from the provisions of the Act and the Rules."
6. The petitioners also relied the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which is produced as Annexure-D in Crl.M.C. 2215/2017. The Central Government Counsel submitted that the Karnataka High Court rejected similar contention as per Willy Ko v. State of Karnataka [MANU/KA/6247/2019]. CGC also submitted that the challenge against the same is dismissed by the Apex Court also.
7. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the CGC. Admittedly, the same contentions are raised before the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 18 2024:KER:71107 considered the matter in detail in Annexure-D produced in Crl.M.C. No. 2215/2017. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :
"6. Even otherwise, perusal of the relevant regulations, more particularly Regulation 3 of the Airports Authority of India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling of Transport Services) Regulations, 2000 (for short "Regulations, 2000") clearly indicates that the operator or carrier may either carry out ground handling services at an airport by itself or engage the services of any of the followings.
(I) Airports Authority of India;
(II) The two national carriers Air India & Indian Airlines;
(III) Any other handling agency licensed by the Airports
Authority of India.
The term "Ground Handling" has been defined under Rule 2(e) of the above Regulations, as under:
"2(e) "Ground Handling" means:
(i) ramp handling and will include activities as specified
in Annexure 'A' to the Regulations;
(ii) traffic handling and will include activities as specified
in Annexure 'B' to the Regulations
(iii) any other activity designated by the Chairman to any
part either of ramp handling or traffic handling."
7. The settlement contract, which is annexed to the petition indicates that foreign airlines have entered into a contract in respect of ground handling services, with Air India CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 19 2024:KER:71107 and Indian Airlines, and they were authorised under the Regulations, 2000 to enter into such a contract.
8. Apart from that, the said contract is on principal to principal basis, and therefore, the question of violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, does not arise at all, since the provisions of Regulations, 2000 clearly authorise the Petitioners to enter into contract of ground handling activities, which are more specifically enumerated in paragraph 3 of the petition. In our view, therefore, there is clear non application of mind in issuing the process. The Apex Court in the case of R. P. Kapur, Appellant Vs. State of Punjab, Respondent [AIR 1960 SC 866] has given some of the categories of cases where inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should exercised, which are as under:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.
Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category
(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not.
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 20
2024:KER:71107
(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained."
Ratio of this judgment has been followed in the subsequent judgment by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604]
9. In the present case, therefore, ratio of both the above judgments squarely apply to the facts of the present case, since there is a specific legal sanction given to the Petitioners to enter into contract and therefore, they are clearly excluded, even otherwise, from the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 the Contract Labour CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 21 2024:KER:71107 (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The Respondents, therefore, could not have prosecuted the Petitioners for carrying out the activities of ground handling activities, which are legally permitted under the Regulations.
10. Impugned complaints filed by the respondents are, therefore, quashed and set aside. Both the petitions are allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, in both the petitions."
8. I am in respectful agreement with the above dictum laid down by the Bombay High Court. The Central Government Counsel submitted that the similar point was considered by the Karnataka High Court in Willy Ko's case (supra). But, this Court perused the same. In paragraph 6 of the above judgment, the Bombay High Court judgment is considered and distinguished by the Karnataka High Court. Moreover, the facts in the Karnataka High Court judgment is entirely different as evident by paragraph 7 of the above judgment. Therefore, on facts, the Karnataka High Court judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In addition to all this, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2851/2017 produced an information CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 22 2024:KER:71107 received under the Right to Information Act. Annexure-A7 is the information. Annexure-A6 is the application submitted for supply of information under the RTI Act. The following questions for information were asked in Annexure-A6.
"(i) Whether the Ground Handling Services provided by M/s.
Air India- SATS Celebi, BWFS and CAPL are treated by the RLC (Central) as providing Contract Labour on hire to various airlines, under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970?
(ii) If yes, how many of the above service providers have accepted themselves as contractors within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and have obtained licence as contractor providing contract labour on hire to various airlines"
(iii) Or whether such Ground Handling Services providers are treated as service providers?
(iv) Whether any inspection was made of the premises of such service providers or of the concerned airlines where these aforesaid service providers are providing services, by the Labour Enforcement Officer under the aforesaid Act?
(v) If yes, whether any Show Cause Notices have been issued to any of such and/or to all such service providers or not?
(vi) Whether Operators at the IGI Airport such as, Neha Aviation, Avia Expert, Deevyani International, Universal and Lion are similarly placed and treated at par with the service providers such as M/s CAPL Air India - SATS, Celebi and BWFS?
(vii) Whether Operators like M/s Neha Aviation, Avia Expert, Deevyani International, Universal and Lion are also operating at the IGI Airport under a licence/permission granted by the CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 23 2024:KER:71107 AAI/DIAL?
(viii) In case of non-obtaining of licence as a contractor under the aforesaid Act, how many service providers like CAPL, Air India SATS, Celebi and BWFS have been asked to seek licence under the Act?
(ix) In default, against how many service providers out of the four aforesaid service providers, prosecution has been launched against them for violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970?
(x) Whether Air India SATS is a contractor within the meaning of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 or not?
(xi) If yes, whether Air India - SATS have been prosecuted for non-obtaining of licence as contractor and/or violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970?
(xii) If no, the reason why Air India - SATS have not been, prosecuted so far, for violation of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970?"
9. Annexure-A7 is the reply and the answer to question Nos.1 to 12 in Annexure-A7 is extracted hereunder :
"1. No, M/s. Air India, SATS, Celebi, BWFS and CAPL are principal employers.
2. As mentioned in "1", they are principal employers and not contractors.
3. Yes
4. No
6. No. CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 24 2024:KER:71107
7. No information is available in this office
8. As they are Principal employers, they are not required to obtain licence under the Act. However, they are required to obtain Regn. Certificate under the Act. 11&12. As they are Principal employers, the question of obtaining licence under the Act does not arise."
10. From the above, it is clear that the Act and Rules are not applicable to the petitioners. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are to be allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are allowed in the following manner.
(1) Crl.M.C. No. 2215/2017 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 4050/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
(2) Crl.M.C. No. 2217/2017 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 4051/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 25 2024:KER:71107 Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
(3) Crl.M.C. No. 2851/2017 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in ST No. 3454/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly are quashed.
(4) Crl.M.C. No. 4463/2022 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 1405/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly (Temporary) are quashed.
(5) Crl.M.C. No. 4582/2022 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 1404/2021 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Angamaly (Temporary) are quashed.
(6) Crl.M.C. No. 6537/2022 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 89/2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri are quashed.
(7) Crl.M.C. No. 6546/2022 is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 90/2022 on the CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 26 2024:KER:71107 file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 27 2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2217/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS ANNEX-A COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEING ST NO. ST NO. 4051/16 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEX-B TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 2/6/2010 (AIC SL.NO. 3/2010) ANNEX-C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING REF.NO.RO/CMD.10/793 DATED 22/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ANNEX-D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN AIR INDIA LTD AND ANR. V. S GUNAHARI AND ANR. IN WPC 277 OF 2003 AND WPC 278 OF 2003 DATED 8/6/2015.
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 28
2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2851/2017 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1 Copy of notification issued by Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 30/11/1987 Annexure R2 Copy of Attendance Sheet in August 2016 Annexure R3 Copy of Inspection Note dated 27.08.2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WFS AND CIAL DATED 3.1.2009.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND JET AIRWAYS DATED 15.5.2016. ANNEXURE A1 ATTESTED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ANGAMALY, DT.
22.11.2016.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MR. LALITH BHARATHDWAJ UNDER THE RTI ACT. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE A6 DATED 2.7.2012.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE A1 CASE.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM) DATED 27.8.2016 WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 29
2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4463/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) REGULATIONS, 2018 CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 30 2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4582/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY, BEING ST 1404 OF 2021 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) REGULATIONS, 2018 CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 31 2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6537/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI, BEING ST 89 OF 2022.
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI IN ST 89 OF 2022 Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) REGULATIONS, 2018 Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN AIR INDIA LTD. AND ANR. V. S GUNAHARI AND ANR. IN WP(C) 277 0F 2003 AND WPC 278 OF 2003 DATED 08.06.2015 Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRLMC NO. 4582 OF 2022 CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 32 2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6546/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI, BEING ST 90 OF 2022 Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI IN ST 90 OF 2022 Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES) REGULATIONS, 2018.
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN AIR INDIA LTD. AND ANR. V. S GUNAHARI AND ANR. IN WP(C) 277 0F 2003 AND WPC 278 OF 2003 DATED 08.06.2015.
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRLMC NO. 4582 OF 2022 CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 33 2024:KER:71107 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2215/2017 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEING ST NO.4050/16 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 02-06-2010 (AIC SL NO.3/2010) ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING REF. NO.
RO/CMD/10/793 DATED 22-09-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN AIR INDIA LTD AND ANR V. S. GUNAHARI AND ANOR IN WPC 277 OF 2003 AND WPC 278 OF 2003 DATED 08-06-2015