National Aviation Company Of ... vs Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3119 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C.) No. 11717/2004 and C.M. No. 8217/2004(for stay)

%                 Date of Decision: 11th August, 2009


# NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD.
                                                    ..... PETITIONER
!                 Through: Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate.

                                 VERSUS

$ SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & OTHERS
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Mr. K. Prabhakar, Advocate for Respondents No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of a writ

of certiorari and/ or any other appropriate writ or directions to set aside

the impugned order of reference dated 27.06.2003 being reference No. L-

11012/51/2002 passed by respondent No. 1.

2. The impugned order of reference is Annexure-'A' at page 23 of the

Paper Book. Vide impugned order, the Central Government made the

following reference for adjudication by Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, New Delhi:

"Whether the demand of the Air Port Employees Union from the management of Indian Airlines, New Delhi for regularising the services of Shri Dinesh Chaudhary and 5 others (as per list) who were engaged by M/s Rainbow Landscapes and Horticulture Services, New Delhi is just and fair? If so, to what relief are the workman entitled and from what date?"

3. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, has argued that the impugned reference extracted above

passed by respondent No. 1 is erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to well-

established principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others Vs.

National Union Water Front Workers and Others, 2001 (5) Scale

626.

4. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it may be noted that respondents

No. 4 to 9 are the persons engaged by respondent No. 10 in connection

with the work of gardening and landscaping awarded by the petitioner to

respondent No. 10. These respondents No. 4 to 9 are the members of

respondent No. 3 union. They have espoused their demand through

respondent No. 3 union for their regularisation in the service of the

petitioner and it is on this dispute being raised by the respondent No. 3

union for regularisation, impugned reference has been made by the

Central Government for adjudication before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal as to whether their demand for regularisation in the

service of the petitioner is just and fair and if so, to what relief they are

entitled and from what date.

5. Mr. Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

has also argued that since respondent No. 4 to 9 are admittedly

employees of respondent No. 10, the impugned reference made by the

Central Government in relation to their regularisation in the service of the

petitioner is bad on the face of it and according to him, does not

constitute an industrial dispute.

6. On giving my anxious consideration to the above arguments

advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, I

could not persuade myself to agree with any of the above submissions

made by the petitioner. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Steel Authority of India Limited & Others Vs. National Union

Water Front Workers and Others (supra) is not applicable at this

stage because the Court in the present writ petition is not dealing with

abolition or regulation of the contract labour. What this Court has to see

in the present writ petition is whether the impugned reference was

beyond the competence of the Central Government or whether the said

reference could not have been made for adjudication by the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal. The argument of Mr. Bhasin that since

respondents No. 4 to 9 were admittedly the employees of respondent No.

10 and, therefore, according to him, the reference for their regularisation

in the service of the petitioner could not have been made, is not

acceptable. In case respondents No. 4 to 9 are the employees of

respondent No. 10, then it may be a ground for the Industrial Adjudicator

to answer the reference against them. Respondent No. 4 to 9 who seek

their regularisation in the service of the petitioner were engaged by the

respondent No. 10 in connection with the work of gardening and

landscaping of the petitioner. The Industrial Adjudicator has to examine

on the basis of evidence the circumstances and nature of employment

under which respondents No. 4 to 9 came to be employed by respondent

No. 10. The Industrial Adjudicator has also to see the terms of

employment of respondents No. 4 to 9 and also the period of their

employment for adjudicating whether their demand for regularisation in

the service of the petitioner is just and fair or not. These are all disputed

questions of fact and can be well-proved before the Industrial Adjudicator

after both parties adduce their respective evidence on the reference. In

the considered opinion of this court, the impugned reference was within

the competence of the appropriate Government and cannot be said to be

beyond jurisdiction.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay application also

stands disposed of accordingly.

AUGUST 11, 2009                                  S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'bsr'