Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KUMARESH BABU, J.) The instant writ appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned single Judge, wherein he had upheld the notification issued by the Central Government abolishing contract labour system in trolley retrieval in the establishment of Airport Authority of India at Chennai.

2.There are four parties to the batch of these writ appeals. They are a) Airport Authority of India represented by its Director, Chennai Airport, who is the employer, b) Tamil Nadu Airport Workers Union - they represent the contract workers, who were employed as trolley retrieval workers till 2004, C) Tamil Nadu General Workers Union representing 19 contract workers, who were employed during 2004 and d) 65 Contract Workers represented by the 5 men committee, who had been employed during 2004.

15.Father Xavier Arulraj, learnd Senior Counsel would further contend that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recommendations of the Board do not conform to the ingredients warranting prohibition of contract labour in trolley retrieval. He would further contend that the recommendations of the Board had pointed out that the trolley retrieval work is perennial in nature that there is no employee-employer relationship between the Airport Authority of India and the contract workers. The learned Senior Counsel reiterated his argument that when the contract outsourcing the trolley retrieval works is backed by a statutory mandate, which is a special enactment governing the Airport Authority of India, neither the Board nor the Government ought to have exercised their power under general enactment, namely Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as CLRA Act).

26.She would further contend that the contract workers, who were employed post 2004 through other contractors had also filed a writ petition before this Court seeking to refer their claim for industrial dispute on the ground that the contract for trolley retrieval entered into by the Airport Authority of India with private entities as sham and nominal. She would further contend that such contract labourers, who came into the picture, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pursuant to the non-employment of the members of the Union she represents cannot have a better claim and they have to stand in queue behind the members of the Union represented by her. She would further submit that the members of the Union have been continuously engaged for more than 10 years by different contractors and therefore, they are entitled to be absorbed first in the regular vacancies for trolley retrievers.

29.She would further contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1 had held that the establishment will have to give preference to the contract labourers working in its establishment by relaxing the relevant rules with regard to the maximum age and also the academic qualifications. She reiterated that the Airport Authority of India in spite of prohibition/notification continuous to engage the services of other contract labourers and thereby is not making regular appointments. This attitude, according to her, is a ruse to belittle the rights of preferential consideration available to the contract workers, who have been hitherto employed in the retrieval of trolleys at the Chennai Airport.