Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may take the facts of CW No. 4211/97 inasmuch as the nature of employment of such security guards on contract basis in other petitions is almost similar/same.

5. Petitioners in Civil Writ No. 4211/97 are Ex. armymen. Respondent No. 2 is the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter AAI) and it needs security services at various airports including IGI Airport Cargo Terminal for the purpose of providing security at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. It has hired the services of UP Bhutpurva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited i.e. respondent No. 4 which is a contractor and provides such services. Petitioners are the employees of contractor and under the aforesaid contract of providing security between AAI and contractor, the petitioners are deployed/deputed as security guards at IGI Airport Cargo Terminal. They have been working as such at the aforesaid terminal from different dates. It is stand of the petitioners that they are discharging duties of permanent and perennial nature. Moreover according to petitioners, the work performed by them as security guards comes within the expression "watching of buildings" and they may be treated as direct/regular employees of AAI. It is further mentioned that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation Etc. Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. .