Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Airport Authority Of India vs Indian Airport Employees Union on 24 March, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3198 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.27458 of 2013)
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA … Appellant
VERSUS
INDIAN AIRPORT EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. … Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1608 of 2012 wherein the High Court has directed as follows :
“Respondent No.1 has filed Writ Petition No.109 of 2009 challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 26th May, 2008. Rule was issued and Rule on interim relief was made returnable. Admittedly, to date, there are no interim reliefs. There is, therefore, no justification for respondent No.1 not to comply with the order of the Industrial Tribunal.
5. This Writ Petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to comply with the order of Industrial Tribunal dated 26th May, 2008 within eight weeks from today, subject to any orders that may be passed, including in Writ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Petition No.109 of 2009. There shall be no order Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.03.27 18:59:08 IST as to costs.” Reason: 2
3. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General for Airport Authority of India, submitted that the High Court has fallen into error by issuing the said direction when the execution of the award was directly sought before the High Court by the respondent-employees. It is also his submission that there is no justification to pay the wages to the employees when there is no work. It is urged by him that the obligation to pay the wages rests with the Mumbai International Airport (Pvt.) Ltd., the 2 nd respondent herein. Lastly, it is contended that if the wages are directed to be paid, the employees who had approached the High Court in Writ Petition No.1608 of 2012 must be prepared to go on transfer to other Airports under the control of the Airport Authority of India, as there is no work at Mumbai.
4. Mr. Grover, learned senior counsel for the private respondents, resisting the aforesaid submissions, per contra, contended that the controversy is covered by the order pased in Civil Appeal No.8421-8422 of 2014 titled as Airports Authority of India vs. Indian Airports Employees' Union & Anr. (decided on 02.09.2014) wherein the direction was issued for grant of wages arising out of the same award which was assailed by the present appellants in another writ petition. Learned senior counsel would submit that the employees have not been paid the wages since June 2011 and there is no justification or warrant not to pay the wages. As regards, the transfer, learned senior counsel would submit that there is work at Bombay Airport and, therefore, this mercurial plea canvassed as regards the transfer is not tenable. 3
5. There is no cavil over the fact that the respondent-employees are covered by the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. By virtue of the said award, all the employees were benefited. The Airports Authority of India challenged the award in Writ Petition No.109 of 2009 which is sub-judice before the High Court of Bombay. In the said writ petition, an application under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed and the High Court has directed for payment of the benefits under Section 17B. Eventually, as is manifest, the order of the High Court came to be assailed in the earlier appeal wherein this Court opined that as there was no reinstatement as per the award, Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. In the said case, it has been held as follows :
“In the present case as we find that there is no order of re-instatement passed by the Tribunal, we agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of any order of re-instatement the High Court wrongly observed that workmen are entitled for wages under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, on that ground, if the impugned order dated 27th April, 2011 is set aside, the consequential effect will be that the appellant will have to implement the award in absence of any stay for more than 5 ½ years. In such case the Indian Airport Authority would be liable to give effect to the impugned award, treat the workmen as permanent employees and will have to pay the salary to which regular employees are entitled from the date of the Award. For reasons aforesaid and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned orders dated 27th April, 2011 and 10th June, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of High Court and direct the appellant to pay 4 the workmen the wages which they are entitled as revised from time to time from the date of the award till the High Court decides the Writ Petition No. 109 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 123 of 2009. The arrear should be paid within two months. Month to month wages be paid on or before 7th day of the subsequent month. It is open to the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited with the High Court to pay the dues to the workmen. In view of interim order as ordered above, the order dated 24th February, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 109 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 123 of 2009, so far as it relates to Rule on interim relief and the order passed by Division Bench is modified to the extent above. The High Court is expected to decide the writ petitions on an early date preferably within six months.”
6. In our considered opinion, there is no justifiable reason not to grant the same relief to the private respondents herein who have been denied the back wages. Regard being had to the concept of parity, we direct that the Airports Authority of India, the appellant herein, shall pay the arrears of wages, as revised from time to time, commencing from the date of the award within a period of eight weeks from today and the same shall be continued be done. The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition by the end of August 2015. We have reiterated the request as it has come to our notice that the High Court, despite the earlier request, has not yet disposed of the writ petition.
7. As far as the transfer is concerned, they should not be transferred till the end of October 2015. We have said so as we have requested the High Court to dispose of the writ petition. We may repeat at the cost of repetition that we have protected the employees as their fate will depend upon the disposal of the writ 5 petition.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
................,J.
(Dipak Misra) ................,J.
(Prafulla C. Pant) New Delhi;
March 24, 2015.
6
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.5 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27458/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/06/2013 in WP No. 1608/2012 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS INDIAN AIRPORT EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 24/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prveen Jain, Adv.
Mr. T.S. Sidhu, Adv.
Mrs. Gunjan S. Jain, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ganesh Kamath, Adv.
M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Grover, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Niren, Adv.
Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv. Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.
Mr. Farid Karachiwala, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Langar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file)