Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The Petitioner is a statutory body, constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The Respondent No.1, Indian Airports Employees Union (the Union) is a trade union, which seeks to espouse the cause of the workers involved in the Reference. The Petitioner carries out its activities at various places in India in around 120 airports in the country, including the airport at Mumbai, the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. For discharging its duties, the Petitioner engages permanent employees, casual workers and contract workers. The dispute in the present petition relates to the workers employed on contract basis at the airport in Mumbai.

Thereafter by a respondent no.6 therein, and at that point of time, it was being undertaken by one M/s JAC Enterprises whose contract was valid until 31 January 1991. The Division bench directed the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (the Board) constituted under the CLRA Act to investigate the demands of the Union for prohibiting employment of contract labour for various works carried out by the Petitioner under Section 10 of CLRA Act. The Board was directed to make a report to the Central Government on or before 30 July 1991. The Petitioner was directed to ensure that all contract workers are paid the minimum wage. The Division bench directed the Petitioner to continue the existing contract system subject to the result of the inquiry under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and subject to further orders. It was directed that the Petitioner shall enter into a contract listed in the registration certificate, and in case no contractor is available or forthcoming, the Petitioner shall do the work departmentally by engaging the concerned workers. The Division bench clarified that mere fact that the workers are continued to be employed for the :5: 1 WP 109-2009 Judg .doc.

ii) There is no contract since 1 January 1993 for 20 workers employed at Cargo Complex and Import Warehouse. These workmen are treated as Departmental Casual Loaders and they are being paid wages departmentally from 1st January, 1993 irrespective their dates of appointments in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench.

iii) At the Import Warehouse the Petitioner has employed 20 workers as loaders who are directly employed under the Petitioner, employer, as permanent workers apart from managerial, supervisory, and clerical staff. The concerned workers, called contract workers, used to perform the same, similar, and identical : 10 : 1 WP 109-2009 Judg .doc.

77. Taking up group A and B first. These workers were employed through the contractors who were given the work after : 73 : 1 WP 109-2009 Judg .doc.

calling for tenders and though an open bidding process. It is was not that these contractors did not exist. Contract was entered into by calling for tender through advertisements. In Writ petition No.1494 of 1989, it was stated by the Respondent-Union that the contractors who were joined to the petition purported to be contractors, they are not lawful contractors but mere intermediaries. It was stated that the work done by the contract workers was of permanent nature and the contractors are rotated. It was stated that the contractors do not have licenses. The Division bench noted that as regards the workers involved in that petition, the contract was presently being undertaken by one M/s JAC Enterprises which contract was for period of 31 August 1991.