Delhi High Court
Delhi International Airport ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 July, 2014
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.07.2014
+ W.P.(C) 5283/2012
DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Ashwani Mata with Mr Atul Sharma,
Mr Milanka Choudhary and Mr Abhinav
Agnihotri.
For the Respondents : Ms Anjana Gosain for R-1.
Mr Lalit Bhasin, Ms Ratna D. Dhingra and Ms
Bhavna for R-3.
Mr Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia, praying as under:-
"( a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ,
order of direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India directing the Respondent No.3, being the 'Principal
Employer', to comply with the Judgment dated 15.09.2011
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.
369/2010 and SLP (C) No. 377/2010 (which stood converted
into Civil Appeal No.7872/2011 and Civil Appeal No.
7873/2011) and the Notification dated 26.07.2004 bearing
number S.O. 848 (E) issued by the Respondent No.1 and
abolish contract labour in the activity of 'trolley retrieval at
the IGI Airport, regularize the employment of workers
employed for performing trolley retrieval work "at the IGI
Airport and directly perform the activity of 'trolley retrieval'
at the IGI Airport."
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of
this court to the notification dated 26.07.2004, which prohibited
employment of contract labour for the job of trolley retrieval in the
establishment of Airports Authority of India at Indira Gandhi International
Airport and Domestic Airport at Delhi. Issues relating to the applicability of
this notification were agitated before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.7872/2011 and other connected appeals. The Supreme Court considered
the question; "whether the Notification dated 26th July, 2004 issued by the
Central Government under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short, 'CLRAA') prohibiting
employment of contract labour of trolley retrievals in the establishment of
the Airport Authority of India (for short, 'AAI') at the Indira Gandhi
International Airport and Domestic Airport at Delhi would be applicable to
the Delhi International Airport Private Limited (for short, 'DIAL') or
not?". This question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative
and it was held as under:-
"86. For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the notification
dated 26th July, 2004 was equally binding on DIAL under the
CLRAA and, therefore, DIAL must abolish all contract labour
as per the terms of the notification.
87. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
the Central Government notification dated 26th July, 2004 is
clearly binding and applicable to DIAL. DIAL's obligation
with regard to the contract labour in general is clear 'from the
said notification. They are liable to be regularized as regular
employees of DIAL. DIAL has replaced many of the workers
with other trolley retrievers and it would be unrealistic to
expect DIAL to regularize the employment of their current
trolley retrievers and member of the workers' union alike and
inequitable to leave the current workers jobless so as to make
room for erstwhile workers of DIAL."
88. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these
cases directing DIAL to regularize services of trolley retrievers
who worked with DIAL till 2003 would be harsh, unrealistic
and not a pragmatic approach, therefore, in the interest of
justice, we deem it proper to direct DIAL to pay Rupees five
lacs to each of the erstwhile 136 workers of DIAL who were
working for them as trolley retrievers till 2003 and in case any
worker has expired, then his or her legal heirs would be
entitled to the said amount. This compensation is paid to the
workers in lieu of their permanent absorption/reinstatement
with DIAL and their claim of back wages. This is in full and
final settlement of entire claims of erstwhile 136 workers of
DIAL.
89. We direct DIAL to pay the amount to these 136 erstwhile
workers of DIAL within three months after proper verification.
In case the amount, as directed, is not paid within the
prescribed period, then it would carry interest at the rate of
12% per month from that point till the amount is paid.
90. These appeals are accordingly disposed of in the
aforementioned terms. In the facts and circumstances of these
cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the above
conclusion of the Supreme Court is in variance with the observations made
the court in paragraph 81 of the said judgement wherein the petitioner had
been described as contractor and not as a principal employer. He states that
in this view regularization of workers employed in retrieval of trollies as
directed by the Supreme Court would be contrary to the provisions of the
CLRA Act.
4. In my view the present petition is misconceived. In the event the
petitioner was aggrieved by the directions issued by the Supreme Court, it's
only recourse was to approach the Supreme Court and not file a petition in
this court.
5. Having stated the above, it is also apparent that the directions of the
Supreme Court in paragraph 86 and 87 of its judgement are not ambiguous
and in terms of the said directions DIAL is obliged to regularise the
employment of workers employed in retrieval of trollies as its employees.
The employees who were previously engaged in the job of trolley retrieval
would have to be paid the compensation as directed by the Supreme Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this obligation has already
been discharged.
6. The prayer made in the present writ petition is couched in unclear
terms. Under the guise of an innocuous sounding prayer, what the
petitioner really wants, is to be absolved of complying with the directions
issued by the Supreme Court in paras 86 and 87 of its judgment. It was
pointed out that a petition for review of the said judgement has also been
rejected by the Supreme Court. In this view, the present petition is clearly
an abuse of process of this court and is devoid of any merit. Accordingly,
the petition is dismissed with costs which is quantified at `20,000/-.
7. The costs imposed shall be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee within two weeks from date.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
JULY 22, 2014
MK/RK
