Madras High Court
International Air Cargo Workers Union vs International Airport Authority Of ... on 16 June, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.No.10383 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012 International Air Cargo Workers Union, [Regd. No.1710/MDS], Rep. by its General Secretary, New No.12, (old No.6), B.V. Nagar, 2nd Street, Palavanthangal, Chennai 600 114. ... Petitioner -Versus- International Airport Authority of India, Rep. by Airport Director, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027. ... Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order No.AAM/LAW/1C/2009 dated 30.04.2009 issued by the respondent and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.04.2009 made in C.A.No.2244 of 2002 and consequently, direct the respondent management to restore the members of the petitioner trade union to duty with wages w.e.f. 1st May 2009. For petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for M/s. Row and Reddy For respondent : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban ORDER
The petitioner is a trade union. The respondent - International Airport Authority of India [ in short, "IAAI" ] was established under the International Airport Authority Act, 1971. It established a Cargo Complex at Chennai in the year 1978 under an Agreement dated 30.01.1978 and it granted a licence to a private company known as "M/s. Airfreight Private Limited" [ in short, "APL" ] to be its ground handling agent in respect of export, import and transshipment cargo consignments. The said company had to engage the services of required number of workers for handling the cargo and be responsible for payment of wages to the workers. IAAI had no privily of contract, obligation or responsibility towards the workers employed by APL. The contract was terminated by IAAI w.e.f. 01.11.1995 and thus, APL ceased to be a ground handling agent of IAAI at Madras Airport. As a result, the workers who were loaders and packers employed by APL were likely to lose their job. Therefore, they made a request to IAAI to provide them employment.
2. At that stage, Airfreight Workers Union filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the IAAI to employ all those who had been employed by APL in connection with the ground handling work at Madras Air Cargo Complex and not to recruit any one from outside. During the pendency of the same, IAAI came forward with a scheme to mitigate the hardship of the contract workers which reads as follows:-
"The authority (IAAI) will consider mitigating the hardship of the ex- loaders and packers of M/s Air Freight claimed to be caused on account of its take over of cargo handling function by accommodating them as far as possible except by way of regular absorption in the services of IAAI till such time the authority has made its own regular arrangements, on contract basis through a Co-operative Society formed on specified terms and conditions and period as per the policy of IAAI framed from time to time".
In view of the said scheme, which was agreeable to the union also, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. Thereafter, a co-operative society was formed in terms of the above scheme known as Airport Industrial Co-operative Service Society Limited [ in short, the society] on 28.11.1985. Pending finalisation of a contract between the society and the IAAI, since IAAI started engaging some of the workers of APL as casual labour on day-to-day basis, yet another writ petition was filed. During the pendency of the same, an agreement was reached between the society and the IAAI [The details of the agreement are not necessary for this case and therefore, they are omitted]. As per one of the clauses of the said agreement dated 01.07.1986, the society agreed to provide 70 loaders-cum-packers at the Madras Air Cargo Complex on a consolidated monthly payment of Rs.45,870/-.
4. Thereafter, there were several rounds of litigations about which no elaboration is required as the same would be unnecessary to decide the issues involved in the present writ petition. It is suffice to say that eventually the Central Government referred an Industrial Dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Madras in I.D.No.65 of 1991, wherein the erstwhile loaders and packers employed by Airfreight Workers' Union and subsequently by the society formed by such workers raised a dispute seeking absorption as permanent workers of IAAI. The Tribunal, by award dated 23.12.1994, recorded the following findings:-
"(a) The memo filed by IAAI in W.P. No.11683 of 1985 (which was agreed to by the workers union), resulting in dismissal of W.P.No.11683/1985 filed by the workers' union, amounted to a settlement which was not valid, as IAAI was in a dominant position to dictate terms and compel the workers union to enter into the settlement to circumvent the provisions of law and deprive the legitimate right of the workmen to permanent status.
(b) The said memo of IAAI requiring the workers to form a society was a ploy adopted by IAAI to defeat the legitimate claim of the workers to permanent status to which they were entitled as they had worked for 5 to 14 years previously under Airfreight and thereafter under the IAAI who was the principal employer and after the termination of the handling agency of Airfreight, their workers became the direct employees of IAAI.
(c) After the termination of the handling agency in favour of Airfreight, its employees were directly engaged by IAAI and received salary from IAAI. Thus they became the direct employees of IAAI from November 1985. Once the workers became its employees, IAAI could not change their status from direct workers to indirect workers.
(d) Even when the workmen were working as contract labour through the society, IAAI was exercising direct supervision and control over them, directly paying wages to them and taking disciplinary action against them and all these showed that they were considered and dealt with as direct employees of IAAI and the agreement between IAAI and the society was sham and nominal.
(e) Any attempt by IAAI to appoint the workmen as contract labour is illegal and would amount to an unfair labour practice. "
5. The above said award was challenged by IAAI in W.P.No.6126 of 1995. A learned single Judge [Hon'ble Mr.Justice.Jayasimha Babu] allowed the said writ petition by order dated 15.12.1997 and set aside the award of the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the learned single Judge issued the following direction:-
"(i) The Central Government and the Advisory Board constituted under the CLRA Act should consider whether deployment of contract labour in regard to packing, loading and unloading in IAAI's Madras Cargo Complex should be abolished and take appropriate decision thereon.
(ii) Till such a decision is taken, the workers concerned shall be continued notwithstanding the interruption in their employment as contract labourers from 1994 to the date of that order (15.12.1997), as contract labour on the terms and conditions that were in force between IAAI and the society prior to 1994 subject to the condition that the wages payable to such workers shall not be less than what was paid to contract labour who were engaged between 1994 and 1997; and the said workers shall be engaged from January, 1998, their engagement being subject to good behaviour, conduct, discipline and efficient performance.
(iii) If the Central Government issues a notification under section 10 under the CLRA Act, prohibiting contract labour in regard to loading, unloading and packing in the cargo complex all those who had worked as contract labours under the contract between the society and the IAAI up to the numbers specified in the contract shall be absorbed in the IAAI as was directed by this Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union [1997 (9) SCC 377]."
6. The petitioner / Trade Union challenged the said order of the learned single Judge before a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.544 of 1998. By judgement dated 12.11.2001, the Division Bench of this court set aside the order of the learned single Judge, allowed the Writ Appeal and restored the award of the Tribunal. At this juncture, it needs to be mentioned that the Tribunal had given the finding that the so-called contract between the society and IAAI was sham and nominal and, as a matter of fact, the workers were the direct employees of IAAI. It was this finding which was reversed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench took the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the contract was sham and nominal and thus, the workers were the direct employees of IAAI. That decision of the Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002. By judgement dated 13.04.2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Division Bench and restored the directions issued by the learned single Judge as extracted herein above.
7. In this back drop, the respondent by his proceedings in No.AAM/LAW/1C/2009 dated 30.04.2009 ordered disengaging 77 ex-loaders with immediate effect. The said order reads as follows:-
"In the subject case, while allowing the Appeal of AAI, the Supreme Court vide its Judgement dated 13.04.2009 has dismissed the claim of the 77 ex-loaders for their regularization. In view of the above, it is informed that, the ex-loaders who are deployed under the orders of the Supreme Court in the respective departments are to be disengaged with immediate effect. And the respective HODs are requested to comply with the same."
8. Seeking to quash the said order of the respondent and seeking a further direction to the management to restore the members of the petitioner trade union to duty with wages w.e.f. 01.05.2009, the petitioner trade union is before this court with this writ petition.
9. This writ petition was admitted on 15.06.2009. Along with the said writ petition, the petitioner trade union filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.2 of 2009 seeking an interim direction to the respondent to restore the members of the petitioner trade union to duty pending disposal of the writ petition. By interim order dated 15.06.2009, a learned single Judge of this court [Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha] issued a direction as prayed for. As against the said interim order, an appeal was filed by the respondent herein in W.A.No.866 of 2009. That was dismissed by a Division Bench of this court by order dated 29.06.2009. As against the same, the respondent filed SLP (C) No.20562 of 2009 in which initially the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim stay. Therefore, the loaders who were disengaged could not rejoin duty. Thereafter, the petitioner trade union filed a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking to vacate the interim stay. Eventually, on 04.02.2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP (C) No.20562 of 2009 thereby confirming the interim order passed by the learned single Judge which was confirmed, by the Division Bench. Thereafter, after few exchange of communications between the respondent and the petitioner, on 15.04.2013, 38 loaders were allowed to rejoin duty and in the month of May 2013, 6 others were provided job. Thus, 44 persons have been working on account of the interim order passed by the single Judge of this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2009 filed in the present writ petition.
10. But, according to the petitioner trade union, the arrears of salary for the period commencing from 01.05.2009 till date of providing employment in the month of April and May 2013 was not paid.
11. While so, on the orders of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 21.04.2014, this writ petition has been listed before me for disposal along with the contempt petition in Cont.P.No.2757 of 2013. The said contempt petition has been filed seeking to punish the respondent for allegedly having committed contempt of court by disobeying the interim order of this court dated 15.06.2009 made in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.10383 of 2009. Since I propose to pass a separate order in the contempt petition and the Sub Application filed therein, I do not want to elaborate the facts of the contempt petition in this order.
12. I have heard the learned counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for the petitioner and Mr.Vijay Narayan, the learned senior counsel for the respondent and also perused the records carefully.
13. Admittedly, this is the eighth round of litigation. Let us hope that this be the last round of litigation as well. Though the narration of the facts made herein above would give the first impression that the issue involved in this matter is so complicated, a deeper scrutiny would dispel the said impression and make it clear that the issue is as simple as it could be. The issue is as to whether the respondent was right in disengaging the loaders notwithstanding the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002 dated 13.04.2009.
14. According to the directions of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 which was restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002, (i) the Central Government and the Advisory Board constituted under The Contract Labour [Regulation and Abolition] Act, 1970 [ in short, "the CLRA Act" ] should consider whether the deployment of contract labour in regard to packing, loading and unloading in IAAI Madras Cargo Complex should be abolished and take appropriate decision thereon; (ii) Till such decision was taken, the workers concerned should be continued notwithstanding the interruption in their employment as contract labour from 1994 to the date of that order (15.12.1997), as contract labour on the terms and conditions that were in force between IAAI and the society prior to 1994. As per the direction No.(iii), if once the Central Government issues a notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, prohibiting the contract labour in regard to loading and unloading and packing in the Cargo Complex all those who had worked as contract labour under the contract between the society and the IAAI up to the numbers specified in the contract shall be absorbed in the IAAI as was directed by this court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union [1997 (9) SCC 377].
15. In this writ petition, it is the contention of the petitioner that though the direction of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 was dated 15.12.1997 and though the Hon'ble Supreme Court restored the said directions by setting aside the order of the Division Bench as early as on 13.04.2009, the Central Government has not passed any order so far under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Therefore, as per the further directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these workers should be allowed to continue as contract labour and they are also entitled for back wages.
16. On the contrary, it is the contention of the respondent that as a matter of fact, the Central Government issued an order under Section 10 of the CLRA Act in S.O.1114(E) under Notification dated 16.11.1999 thereby prohibiting the employment of contact labour in the jobs operations or processes specified in the Schedule annexed thereto in the establishment of Air India, Indian Airlines and Airport Authority of India with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
17. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the said notification was challenged before the Delhi High Court in C.W.No.4814 of 2001, batch. A learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, by judgement dated 22.11.2001, set aside the said notification on the ground that the said notification did not satisfy the requirements of Section 10 of the CLRA Act. As against the same, the respondent filed an appeal before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A.No.530 of 2002. By judgement dated 24.07.2002, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court dismissed the said appeal thereby confirming the order of the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court. As against the same, the respondent filed MP Nos.1-2 of 2003 in SLP (C) No..... of 2003 [CC 956 of 2003] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That was dismissed by order dated 31.01.2003. Thus, the notification issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act prohibiting the contract labour was set aside and the same had become final.
18. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that as per the direction (ii) in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 on the file of this court, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since there was a notification issued under section 10 of the CLRA Act as early as on 16.11.1999 and though it was set aside by the Delhi High Court which came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no need for the respondent to continue the contract labourers. In other words, according to the learned senior counsel, since the direction was only to continue to employ the contract labours until a decision is taken by the Central Government and since there was such a decision taken by the Central Government by issuing notification dated 16.11.1999, direction (ii) was satisfied and, therefore, thereafter, the contract labours were disengaged.
19. I have considered the above submissions. As has been extracted herein above, the direction No.(i) was to the Central Government and the Advisory Board constituted under the Act directing them to consider as to whether deployment of contract labour in regard to packing, loading and unloading in IAAI's Madras Cargo Complex should be abolished after taking appropriate decision. In my considered opinion, there was no such decision taken by the Central Government in respect of IAAI's Madras Cargo Complex. Though it is contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that such decision was taken under notification of the Central Government in S.O.1114(E) dated 16.11.2009, I am not persuaded by the said argument for more than one reason. First of all, this notification is a general notification in respect of all the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlines and Airport Authority of India. But, the direction of this court which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to consider whether deployment of contract labour in regard to packing, loading and unloading in Madras Cargo Complex of IAAI should be prohibited. A perusal of Section 10 of the CLRA Act would go to show that a decision is to be taken by the Central Government in respect of each establishment by having regard to various aspects such as condition of work, benefits provided for the contract labour and the other relevant factors, like those specified under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the CLRA Act, the appropriate Government has to ascertain whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment. Clause (b) requires the appropriate Government to determine whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment. Clause (c) contemplates an obligation upon the appropriate Government to determine as to whether that type of work is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar thereto and clause (d) requires verification as to whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen. It is also to be noticed that the said list is not exhaustive. It is only after having considered all the above establishments enumerated in the CLRA Act itself, with reference to a particular establishment, a decision is to be taken by the Central Government in terms of Section 10 of the CLRA Act. That was the precisely direction No. (i) issued by this court wherein this court directed that the Central and the Advisory Board should consider whether to issue an order under Section 10 of the CLRA Act with reference to Madras Cargo Complex of IAAI. But, it is crystal clear that the above notification dated 16.11.1999 was not issued with reference to the Madras Cargo Complex at IAAI by having specific regard to all the above parameters enumerated in the CLRA Act itself. Therefore, I hold that the notification dated 16.11.1999 cannot be termed as notification issued in terms of direction No.(i). However, as we have already mentioned, the order of the learned single Judge issuing the above direction in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 was dated 15.12.1997. As against the same, the writ appeal was filed in W.A.No.544 of 1998. It was disposed of by the Division Bench on 12.11.2001. Had it been true and further had it been the stand of the Central Government or IAAI that the above notification dated 16.11.1999 was in compliance with the direction No.(i) issued by the learned single judge , certainly, the same would have been mentioned so before the Division Bench. But, a perusal of the judgement of the Division Bench dated 12.11.2001 would go to show that it was never the case projected by the IAAI before the Division Bench. Again, had it been the stand of IAAI as well as the Central Government that the above said notification dated 16.11.1999 was in compliance with the direction No.(i) issued by the learned single Judge of this Court, certainly, nothing would have prevented IAAI to mention the same during the course of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002. But, a perusal of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.04.2009 also would go to show that it was never the case of IAAI that the direction No.(i) issued by the learned single Judge of this Court was complied with by notification dated 16.11.1999. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it was not even the case of the respondent all through until 13.04.2009 that the direction No.(i) issued by the learned single Judge of this Court was complied with and the notification dated 16.11.1999 was in tune with the said direction.
20. Admittedly, the said notification dated 16.11.1999 was a general notification issued in respect of all the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlines and Airport Authority of India. The same had no reference to the Cargo Complex of IAAI at Chennai. The Delhi High Court, both the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench, examined the validity of the said notification and found that the Central Government has not taken into account the parameters enumerated in Section 10(2) of the CLRA Act with reference to each establishment. It was on this ground the said notification was set aside by the Delhi High Court which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the said notification has been set aside on the ground that it was not validity issued in the eye of law it should he held as though there was no such notification at all issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel Mr.Vijay Narayan is that since notification dated 16.11.1999 reflected the position of the Central Government, beyond the said date there was no need to continue with the contract labour inasmuch as direction No.(ii) was to the effect that AAI should continue to employ the contract labours until a decision is taken by the Central Government. In other words, since the notification dated 16.11.1999 was a decision of the Central Government, the contract labours were disengaged. This argument, in my considered opinion, is untenable. The direction NO.(ii) issued by this court should he read along with the direction No.(i). The direction No.(i), as we have already mentioned, was so specific to say that the decision of the Central Government should be with reference to Cargo Complex of IAAI at Chenani. That means, the Central Government, after having considered all the parameters enumerated in Section 10 in respect of the IAAI's Cargo Complex at Chennai, had issued the notification dated 16.11.1999. Had there been any such notification with reference to the Chennai Cargo Complex of IAAI then only it could be contended that the direction No.(i) had been complied with. But, a perusal of the notification dated 16.11.1999 and a perusal of the order of the Delhi High Court which came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would go to show that the said notification was issued in common in respect of all the three establishments and not with reference to IAAI's Cargo Complex at Chenai alone. Therefore, I am constrained to reject the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the direction No.(ii) was complied with by the Central Government by issuing notification dated 16.11.1999.
21. In view of the above conclusion that there was no decision taken under Section 10 of the CLRA Act with reference to Cargo Complex of IAAI at Chennai, I should hold that as per direction No.(ii), the contract labours should be continued. Even now it is not too late for the Central Government to comply with direction No.(i) and to take a decision in terms of S.10 of the CLRA Act. For any reason, if the Central Government takes a decision prohibiting the contract labour in the Cargo Complex at AAI in Chennai, then, as per the direction No.(iii), such contract labour will be entitled for absorption in the IAAI. In such view of the matter, the impugned order disengaging the contract labour is not valid and the same is liable to be set aside. I also hold that the impugned order runs contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 which came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002.
22. As I have already pointed out, this Court by order dated 15.06.2009 in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.10383 of 2009 granted interim stay of the impugned order. That order was challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal. As against the same , an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition in SLP (C) No.20562 of 2009. Because interim order of stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said SLP, the order of this court in M.P.No.2 of 2009 was not immediately complied with. After the dismissal of the SLP, after few exchange of communications between the petitioner and the respondent, by letter dated 27.02.2013, the respondent requested the petitioner to instruct the contract labours to be present on various dates in the month of March 2013 for the purpose of providing employment. Accordingly, in the month of April and May 2013, a total number of 44 contract labours appeared and they were engaged. Thus from the month of April, 2013 38 contract labours have been engaged and from the month of May 2013, 6 contract labours have been engaged. This shows that though originally the Industrial Dispute before the Tribunal was in respect 77 contract labours, as of now, there are only 44 contract labours either available or willing to work. Therefore, in my considered opinion, since the impugned order is set aside, the respondent shall continue to employ these 44 contract labours until a decision is taken by the Central Government under Section 10 of the CLRA Act with reference to Cargo Complex of IAAI at Chennai. This account of 44 is given by nonelse than the petitioner in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of Sub. Appln.No.709 of 2013 in Cont.P.No.2757 of 2013.
23. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument, would submit that 55 such contract labours have been provided employment in pursuance of the interim order in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in the present writ petition and not 44 contract labours. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved by this court. In my considered opinion, it would only be appropriate for this court to issue a direction to the respondent to continue to engage the contract labours who have already joined duty in pursuance of the interim order made in M.P.No.2 of 2009 and to allow any more number of such contract labours who are available, on proof of their identity.
24. So far as the claim for back wages is concerned, in my considered opinion, in this case, I have to apply the principle of "no-work, no-pay" for the period during which the contract labours were out of employment. The respondent is a Government Company which was dealing with the public money. It cannot be said that the respondent had wantonly denied to engage these contract labours. Since there were several rounds of litigations and since the issues were complicated at every stage during every litigation and since there was also stay order in force as against the interim order in M.P.No.2 of 2009, the respondent had been advised to pass the impugned order. Therefore, in my considered opinion, during the interregnum period the contract labours did not do any work to the AAI. That apart, the AAI would have engaged workers from other sources to perform the works of loading and unloading and packing during the said period by spending money. Therefore, though the contract labours cannot be fully blamed for this dichotomy, on that score, this court cannot direct the respondent to pay back wages as claimed by the petitioner.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others, 2013 (4) LLN 417 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the case of a wrongful termination of services of an employee, such employee shall be entitled for back wages. Regarding this legal position , there can be no second opinion. But, the facts of the present case are distinguishable. Factually, the employee who was wrongfully terminated from service in Deepali Gundu Surwase case was a permanent employee under the respondent therein. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterating the settled principle of law, said that when the termination is wrongful, such employee would be entitled for back wages. But, in the case on hand, the workers in question are not at all the employees of IAAI. They are only contract labours. The arrangement that they should be engaged by IAAI is purely interim only until a decision is taken by the Central Government under Section 10 of the CLRA Act. Their continued engagement is in pursuant to the order of this court by way of interim measure. So, they cannot claim the benefits as though they are the directed employees of IAAI. Therefore, the said principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As I have already stated, applying the principle of "no-work, no-pay, I am constrained to deny the relief of back wages to the contract labours.
27. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms:-
(i) The impugned order of the respondent is hereby set aside.
(ii) The respondent is directed to continue to employ the contract labours in question who have joined duty as per the interim order issued by this court in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.10383 of 2009 and allow any other such contract labour, who have not joined as per the said interim order, to join duty, however, subject to the proof of their identity until a decision is taken by the Central Government in terms of Section 10 of The Contract Labour [Regulation and Abolition] Act, 1970 as directed by this court in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002.
(iii) It is observed that the Central Government will comply with the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.6126 of 1995 and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.2244 of 2002 soon.
(iv) The prayer for direction for payment of back wages is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
Index : yes / no 16.06.2014
Internet : yes / no
kmk
To
1.The Director, International Airport Authority of India,
Meenambakkam, Chennai 600 027.
S.NAGAMUTHU. J.,
kmk
Pre Delivery Order
in
W.P.No.10383 of 2012
16..06..2014