Delhi High Court

Airport Employees Federation Of ... vs Airports Authority Of India And ... on 24 July, 2002

Author: S Sinha

Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

CM No.1073/2002

1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CM is disposed of.

LPA No.530/2002

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this court whereby and where under the writ petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed and notification dated 16th November, 1999 passed under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was set aside. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that although they were the concerned workmen but they had not been imp leadedas parties in the said writ petition. In the Memorandum of Appeal filed, facts in details as regards the job performed by the members of the appellant union have been stated.

3. It has been pointed out that the workers after the issuance of the said Notification had approached the Kerala High Court seeking regulation of their services and by a judgment the Kerala High Court allowed the appellant union members to seek appropriate remedy in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. . Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said observations, an industrial dispute has been raised. In the meantime, the management filed the aforesaid writ petition and the notification in question having been set aside, the appellant would be adversely affected thereby.

4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned notification does not satisfy the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in Steel Authority of India (supra)'s case. We have been taken through the judgment of the Apex Court in details. The notification which was in question before the Apex Court was in the following terms:

" S.O.No.779 (E) - In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970) the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits employment of contract labour on and from the 1-3-1997, for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by the establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Actis the Central Government:

Provided that this notification shall not apply to the outside cleaning and other maintenance operations of multi-storeyed buildings where such cleaning or maintenance operations cannot be carried out except with specialised experience."

5. In the instant case, the impugned notification is as follows:

"S.O.1114 (E)- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970 (37 of 197) the Central Government after consultation with the Central Board hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the job operations or processes specified in the Schedule annexed hereto in the establishments of Air India, Indian Airlinesand Airport Authority of India with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Office Gazette.

SCHEDULE

1. AIR INDIA (Establishment located Mumbai, Chennai and Delhi)

i. Day to day maintenance and operation of air conditioning plants Generator sets and electrical installations except where are being undertaken by the manufacture/original supplier as part of the supply arrangements, this will not apply to periodical maintenance such as annual overhaulof equipment of heavy breakdowns requiring replacements of major components etc. which the establishment may have entered into with equipment supplier or supplier's nominee.

ii. Maintenance and operation of effluent treatment plants.

iii) Telephone mechanics.

iv) Cargo handing i.e. loading and unloading of cargo.

v. Day to day maintenance and operation of all fire equipmentincluding fire extinguishers and appliancesleaving management free to resort to contractual arrangements only for annual periodical maintenance of these equipment.

2. INDIAN AIRLINES (establishment located at Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Central Training establishments Hyderabad, Delhi, Jet Engineering overhaul Complex, Delhi).

i. Day to day maintenance and operation of air conditioning plants Generator sets and electrical installations except where these are being undertaken by the manufacture/original supplier as part of the supply arrangements, this will not apply to periodical maintenance such as annual overhaulof equipment of heavy breakdowns requiring replacements of major components etc. which the establishment may have entered into with equipment supplier or supplier's nominee.

ii. Maintenance and operation of effluent treatment plants.

iii. Telephone mechanics.

3. AIRPORTAUTHORITY OF INDIA (establishments located at Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Calcutta, Trivandrum, Patna, Bhuvaneshwar, Ranchi, Gaya, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Vadodara, Bangalore, Calicut, cochi, Hyderabad, Mangalore)

ii. Cargo handling i.e. loading and unloading of cargo.

ii. Day to day maintenance and operation of all fire fighting equipment including fire extinguishers and appliances leaving management free to resort to contractual arrangements only for annual periodical maintenance of these equipment.

iv. Aero bridge workers.

v. Lift operators.

vi. Sharp shooters.

vii. Conveyor system.

viii. Electrical maintenance of high mast towers, car park, flood lights and street lights. '

ix. Maintenance (and not repair) of air curtains and sliding doors.

x. Telephone operators.

xi. Apron cleaning.

xii. Split flap display system operation.

sd/-

S.K. Das Director General (Labour Welfare)/Jt. Secy.)

5. Apart from the fact that the interpretation of the impugned notification is not in relation to each establishment, a bare perusal thereof would demonstrate that it suffers from the same vices as was pointed out by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India (supra) in respect of notification dated 9th December, 1976. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms held: "...A glance through the said notification makes it manifest that with effect from 1-3-1997, it prohibits employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government. This clearly indicates that the Central Government had not adverted to any of the essentials, referred to above, except the requirement of consultation with the Central Advisory Board. Consideration of the factors mentioned above has to be in respect of each establishment, whether individually or collectively, in respect of which notification under sub-section(1) of Section 10 is proposed to be issued. The impugned notification apart from being an omnibus notification does not reveal compliance with sub-section (2) of Section 10. This is ex facie contrary to the postulates of Section 10 of the Act. Besides, it also exhibits non-application of mind by the Central Government. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the said impugned notification dated 9-12-1976 issued by the Central Government."

6. The said dicta of the Apex Court applies in all force in the instant case. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.

7. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.