Delhi High Court
Airports Authority Of India vs Indian Airports Kamgar Union on 1 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5490/2017
Judgment reserved on : 9th August, 2018
Date of decision : 1st November, 2018.
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.K.K.Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Digvijay Rai,
Mr.Chandrashekhar A.
Chakalabbi, Advocates
Versus
INDIAN AIRPORTS KAMGAR UNION .... Respondent
Through: Mr.Maanav Kumar and
Ms.Nupur, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioner, the Airports Authority of India, vide the present
writ petition W.P.(C) 5490/2017 has sought the setting aside of an
award dated 8.12.2016 in ID No. 39/2014 of the Presiding Officer,
CGIT stated to be ex parte and has also sought the setting aside of
notification No. L-11011/19/2013-IR(M), dated 19.2.2014 issued by
the Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide which in terms of
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central
Government published the impugned award in reference No. 39/2014
of the CGIT/Labour Court-I/New Delhi between the employers in
relation to the Management of M/s Airports Authority of India and
their workmen which award was received by the Central Government
on 21.12.2016.
2. The respondent to the petition, i.e., the Indian Airports Kamgar
Union was present as a caveator when the matter was taken up for
hearing on 5.7.2017 and filed its counter affidavit to which the
rejoinder was also submitted.
3. Vide order dated 5.7.2017, the petitioner was directed to submit
the status of the implementation of the operation, if any, of the
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003, and action taken
after the impugned award dated 8.12.2016 and vide order dated
19.12.2017, the said status report which had been filed on the said date
was directed to be submitted on an affidavit of the Authorized
Representative of the petitioner. A submission was made on
19.12.2017 on behalf of the petitioner that no adverse action had been
taken pursuant to the award dated 8.12.2016.
4. Vide order dated 19.12.2017 in CM No.46221/17, as the matter
vide order dated 22.8.2017 had been reserved for judgment, and it was
submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to the show cause notice
dated 18.9.2017, the respondent was seeking to precipitate the matter,
it was directed vide order dated 19.12.2017 that no coercive action in
terms of the show cause notice No. ALC-HQSP/1(01)/2017-NK dated
18.9.2017 be taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner till further
orders.
5. The said affidavit of the petitioner in terms of order dated
5.7.2017 and 19.12.2017 was submitted on 9.1.2008.
6. On 17.1.2018, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that
there were certain other orders that had been passed by the petitioner
after the impugned award and time was sought to place them on the
record which chart of changes and new conditions between
Regulations of 1980 and 2003 were submitted on behalf of the
respondent on 9.8.2018 and submissions were made on behalf of
either side.
7. The reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of
Labour and Employment vide letter No. L-1101/19/2013-IR(M) dated
19.2.2014 under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub Section 2(A)
of Section of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was referred to the
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Karkardooma for adjudication with the
terms:
"Whether the action of the management of Airport
Authority of India in making compulsory
retirement of employees on the basis of AAI
Circular No.62/2012 dated 17.1.2012 on
premature retirement is legal? If not, what relief
the workman are entitled to?
8. The corrigendum to the reference was to the effect:
― In partial modification of this Ministry's Order
of even number dated 19.02.2014, in the second
line of the schedule, the figure 62/2012 may be
treated as replaced with 02/2012 and in the third
line the word ‗workman' may be treated as
replaced with ‗workmen'.‖
9. The contention raised by the claimants i.e., the Indian Airports
Kamgar Union arrayed as respondent to the present petitioner in the
Statement of Claim as reflected vide the impugned award are to the
effect:
"3. It is alleged by the claimants in the statement
of claim that prior to 1972, all the airports both
international as well as domestic, were
maintained and managed by Government of India,
Ministry of Civil Aviation through Director
General of Civil Aviation. In the year 1971,
International Airport Authority of India (in short
IAAI) was carved out of the Civil Aviation
Department and was constituted as such, vide
International Airports Authority of India Act,
1971, to maintain and manage the International
Airports in the country. It started functioning from
1972.
4. It is the case of the claimant that in the year
1985, National Airport Authority (in short (NAA))
was carved out of balance Civil Aviation
department of the Government of India vide NAA
Act 1985 to maintain and manage domestic
airports throughout, the country. Upon
constitution of IAAI and NAA, as stated above,
employees who came from Ministry of Civil
Aviation ceased to be Government servants on
joining autonomous body/industrial organization
in the year 1994, IAAI and NAA were merged into
Airport Authority of India (in short AAI) which
started functioning from 01.04,1985. Section 18 of
the Airport Authority of India Act provides that
officer and employees of IAAI and NAA became
employees of AAI created under the Act. Thus,
workmen became employees of AAI. It is clearly
provided under sub-section 2 of Section 18 of the
above Act that every officer and employee of IAAI
and NAA shall continue to be governed by the
same terms and conditions as were applicable to
them earlier under IAAI and NAA respectively. It
is also provided under Section 18(7) of the Act
after expiry of one year, or extended' period
provided under Section 18 of the Act, Officer and
employees of AAI shall be governed by rules and
regulations made by the Authority in respect of
their service conditions. Section 42 of the Act
empowers the Authority to frame conditions of
service and it further provides that regulation
made by AAI under the Act shall have effect only if
approval is given by the Central Government
Further, Section 43 also provides that further
rules and regulations made under the said Act
shall be placed as soon as possible before each
House of Parliament while it is in session. It is,
thus, clear that under Section 42 and 43 of the
Act, following conditions are to be fulfilled:
(i) prior approval of the Central Government
(ii) Notification in the official Gazette
(iii) Laying of rules & regulations before each
House of Parliament and agreement or
disagreement of both the Houses of Parliament for
making or not making the rules & regulations.
5. It is also alleged by the claimant in Para 16 of
the statement of claim that in the year 2003, after
8 years from constitution of AAI management of
AAI prepared Airport Authority of India (General
Conditions of Service and Remuneration of
Employees) Regulation 2003 (hereinafter called
the 2003 Regulation) and got them straightway
notified in the official Gazette skipping the
necessary approval from either House of
Parliament as well as prior approval of the
Central Government,
6. It is also the case of the workman that no rule
or regulation of IAAI and NAA contained any
provision of pre-mature retirement of employee on
attaining age of 50 years on the grounds of
inefficiency or doubtful integrity or medical
unfitness Rather the Central Government provided
for protection or service to his employees who
came to NAA by incorporating a clause in para 5
of its letter dated 22.09.1989 to the effect that
dismissal/removal of an employee for any
misconduct from service of NAA would be subject
to review by Government before taking final
decision and copy of the said letter is Annexure A-
7. In short provisions, compulsory retirement
made in the new regulation was never, in
existence previously which empowers the
Authority to compulsorily retire an employee,
being inefficient or of doubtful integrity of
medically unfit etc. Claimants have quoted in
extenso the various provisions/regulations made
under IAAI Act,
7,-Claimant union has made a representation to
the Chairman vide letter dated 27.1.2012
demanding immediate cancellation of circular of
2012 as is clear from Annexure A-9. Since the said
Regulation of 2003 is legally invalid and having
been made without proper approval of the Central
Government and have not been laid before either
House of Parliament, as such this provision
regarding pre-mature retirement was also invalid
under the law. There is also reference to Section
9A of the ID Act which requires notice to the
workmen before making any change in their
conditions of service. It is further alleged that no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
claimant before making any new service condition
for them or changing old service conditions. The
new provision made by the management of AAI for
pre-mature retirement of the workmen, that too
without show cause notice amounts to termination
of their service. Finally, prayer has been made
for declaring the impugned 2003 regulation
including the provision of premature retirement of
employees as illegal and invalid under the law.
8. Notice served on the management and Shri
Surender Kumar Junior Executive (HR) put up
appearance on 06.0.2014 and 02.07.2014.
Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the
management as such this Tribunal vide order
dated 21.01.2015 proceeded ex parte against the
management.‖
10. The CGIT vide order dated 18.2.2015 framed the issue as:
(i) Whether action of the management of Airport
Authority of India in making compulsory
retirement of employees on the basis of AAI
Circular No. 62/2012 dated 17.1.2012 on
premature retirement is legal? If not, what relief
the workmen are entitled to?
11. As indicated vide the impugned award, the claimant union i.e.,
the respondent herein in support of its stand examined
Sh.G.A.Rudrappa as WW-1 who tendered in evidence the documents
Ex.WW-1/1 to Ex.WW-1/9 and submissions were made by Kamlesh
Kumar, the Authorized Representative of the claimant union. The
impugned award reflects that vide paragraph 23 thereof that an
official, Sh.Surender Singh appeared on behalf of the Management on
two dates but later on for the reasons best known to the Management
none put in appearance on behalf of the Management as a result of
which the Management was proceeded ex parte.
12. Vide the impugned award, the Presiding Officer-cum-CGIT-
Labour Court adverted to the provisions of Section 18, 41 and 42 (1)
& (2) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and observed as
under:
― 12. It is clear from pleadings of the claimant as
well as perusal of affidavit EX.WW1/A that prior
to 1972 all the airports in the country were
maintained by Ministry of Civil Aviation and
Government of India. It is further clear from
pleading or the claimant as well as perusal of
affidavit Ex.WW1/A that prior to 1972,
international as well as domestic airports in the
country were maintained by Ministry of civil
Aviation and Government of India. It is also
apparent from the evidence on record that IAAI
was carved out of Civil Aviation Department of
Government of India and as such IAAI was to
maintain and manager (sic.) the international
airports in the country. It started functioning in
198/72 (sic.). Further in the year 1995, NAA was
carved out of the balance Civil Aviation
Department of the Government of India vide
National Airports Authority Act, 1985. The Act
was to maintain and mange the domestic airports
in the country. Consequent upon creation of these
two bodies and upon constitution of IAAI and
NAA, employees who came from Civil Aviation
ministry ceased to be government servants on
their joining the respective autonomous bodies
and industrial organizations. It is further clear
from record that in the year 1994, IAAI and NAA
were merged to constitute Airport Authority of
India under the Airport Authority of India Act,
1994. It started functioning on 01.01.1995.‖
13. The petitioner contends that the only question before the
Industrial Tribunal was the reference made to it:
―(i) Whether action of the
management of Airport Authority of
India in making compulsory
retirement of employees on the basis
of AAI Circular No. 62/2012 dated
17.1.2012 on premature retirement is
legal? If not, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?,‖
which was rectified vide the corrigendum dated 26.5.2014 that in
place of the figure '62/2012', it was replaced as '02/2012' in the
circular and the word „workman' in the question as rectified to be
read as „workmen' and it was thus submitted by the petitioner that the
Airports Authority India, Act (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulation, 2003 were not part of the
reference to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I and that there was no issue
framed by the Tribunal about the illegality of the said regulation and
could thus not have been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.
14. Inter alia, it was submitted by the appellant/petitioner that the
learned Tribunal erred in holding that circular No. 2/2012 had not got
the approval of the Central Government or that the Regulations were
not taken up for consideration and approval by either House of the
Parliament as required under law and it was rather submitted on behalf
of the petitioner that the said Regulations were placed before the
Rajya Sabha on 19.8.2003 along with the Airports Authority of India
(Contract) Regulations, 2003, Airports Authority of India Employees
(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 2003, Airports
Authority of lndia (Annual Report and Annual Statement of Account)
Rules, 2003, Airports Authority of India(Leave) Regulations, 2003,
Airports Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier
and Express Goods and Postal Mail), Regulations, 2003, Airports
Authority of India (Conditions of Service of the Chairman and Other
Members), Rules,2003, Airports Authority of India (Employees
Medical Attendance and Treatment) Rules, 2003 and Airports
Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations, 2003. Copy
of the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha dated 19.08.2003 were annexed
with the petition as Annexure P-4.
15. A perusal of the business conducted in the Rajya Sabha on
19.8.2003, at 12 noon indicates that Item (II) was as follows:
"II. A statement (in English and Hindi) regarding
restructuring package of SIDBI
for State Financial Corporations.
Shri Rajiv Pratap Rudi (Minister of State
(Independent charge) of the Ministry
of Civil Aviation) laid on the Table:-
I. A copy (in English and Hindi) of the Ministry of
Civil Aviation Notification G.S.R. 246 (E) dated
the 28th June, 2003, publishing the Aircraft
(Second Amendment) Rules, 2003, under section
14-A of the Aircraft Act, 1934, together with an
Explanatory Memorandum.
II. A copy each (in English and Hindi) of the
following Notifications of the Ministry of Civil
Aviation, under section 43 of the Airport
Authority of India Act, 1994, together with
Explanatory Memoranda on the Notifications and
Delay Statement:--
(1) F.No.AAI/PERS/EDPA/Reg/2002 dated the 1st
April 2003, publishing the Airports Authority of
India (Contract) Regulations, 2003.
(2) S.0.521 (E) dated the 9th May 2003,
publishing the Airports Authority of India
Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 2003.
(3) F.No.AAI/PERS/EDPA/Reg/2002 dated the
23rd May, 2003, publishing the Airports
Authority of India (General Conditions of
Service and Remuneration of Employees)
Regulations, 2003.
19TH AUGUST, 2003
(4) S.0.657 (E) dated the 6th June, 2003,
publishing the Airports Authority of India
(Annual Report and Annual Statement of
Accounts) Rules, 2003.
(5) F.No.AAI/PERS/EDPA/REG/2002 dated the
13th June, 2003, publishing the Airports Authority
of India (Leave) Regulations, 2003.
(6) No.Cargo/1351/9 dated the 13th June, 2003,
publishing the Airports Authority of India
(Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and
Express Goods and Postal Mail) Regulations,
2003.
(7) S.0.718 (E) dated the 20th June, 2003,
publishing the Airports Authority of India
(Conditions of Service of the Chairman and
Other Members) Rules, 2003.
(8) F.No.AAI/PERS/EDPA/Reg/2002 dated the
26th June, 2003, publishing the Airports Authority
of India (Employees Medical Attendance and
Treatment) Regulations, 2003.
(9) No.AAI/PERS/EDPA/Reg/2002 dated the 3rd
July, 2003, publishing the Airports Authority of
India (Management of Airports) Regulations,
2003.‖,
and it was thus contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned
Tribunal had failed to appreciate that the said Regulations of 2003
were notified by the Government of India and could not be notified
without being placed before the Parliament.
16. Inter alia, the petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal
erroneously came to the conclusion that circular No. 02/2012 was to
be notified and published in the Official Gazette and hence was in
gross contravention of provisions of Section 42(4) and (5) of the
Airports Authority India, Act, 1994 and that the learned Tribunal had
not appreciated that Regulation 12(5) of the 2003 Regulations which
was duly notified by the Central Government contained a provision of
premature retirement and the circular No.02/2012 was issued under
the said Regulation and only provided a procedure for the
fair/impartial consideration of employees for premature retirement
under the said Regulations of 2003.
17. Inter alia, the petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal
erroneously came to the conclusion that no notice was issued to the
workmen when the Regulations of 2003 were framed without
appreciating that the said terms and conditions of the service of the
employees of the petitioner were approved by the Board of the
Petitioner on 31.3.1997 and were being followed prior to its
Notification in the year 2003, after the opinion of the Ministry of Law,
Government of India which was evident from its letter dated 3.4.1997.
Inter alia, the petitioner contended that the learned Tribunal had
erroneously came to the conclusion that no notice under Section 9(A)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, was given to the respondent prior to
framing of the 2003 Regulations without any evidence on record.
Moreover the said Regulations were framed in the year 1997 and
notified in the year 2003 by the Respondent since the year 1997 or
prior to 2003 had never raised any such objection in relation thereto
and that the challenge of the respondent to the said Regulations after a
period of twenty years or eleven years was badly hit by the principles
of delay and laches and the respondent was not entitled to the same
when they were availing of the benefits of the said Regulation since
1997 or at best from 2003.
18. Inter alia, it was contended by the petitioner that the reliance
placed by the learned Tribunal on the verdict of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in U.P. State Electricity Board and Another Versus Hah
Shankar Jain & Others : (1978) 4 SCO 16 which clearly stipulates
that the Regulations made by the Board with respect to any of those
matters are of no effect unless such regulations are either notified by
the Government in as much as in the instant case the Regulations
2003 were duly notified was misplaced.
19. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned
Tribunal erroneously relied upon the verdict of the Supreme Court in
M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Versus The Workmen and Others:
(1972) 2 SCO 383 wherein it has been clearly laid down that the real
object and purpose of enacting Section 9-A seems to afford an
opportunity to the workmen to consider the effect of the proposed
change and, if necessary, to represent their point of view on the
proposal and contended that in the instant case there was no change in
the service conditions on framing the 2003 regulations in as much as
the International Airports Authority of India Act, 1972 stood repealed
on formation of the Airports Authority India, Act, 1994 and also the
Regulations framed under the Act of 1972 stood redundant.
20. The petitioner submitted that the reliance placed by the
learned Tribunal on the verdict of the Supreme Court in The Karnal
Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus The Labour Court and Others:
(2003) 134 PLR 233 was erroneous as it stated that notice should be
given if there is a change of the Terms and Conditions of Service of an
employee, whereas in the instant case the Regulations when approved
by the Board of the petitioner were in the public domain and same
were notified in the year 2003 and no objection was ever raised by the
respondent at the relevant point.
21. The petitioner through the affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Tanwar,
Joint Manager (HR) to the Airports Authority of India, which was
submitted in terms of order dated 22.7.2012 and 19.12.2017 in the
instant petition has inter alia submitted that after the passing of the
impugned award in ID No.39/14, no employee of the petitioner had
been given pre-mature retirement as per the Airports Authority of
India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of
Employees) Regulations, 2003.
22. The respondent Union through affidavit dated 18.7.2017
Mr.G.A.Rudrappa, General Secretary of the Indian Airports Kamgar
Union, submitted that the mala fide, vexatious Writ Petition ought to
be dismissed and submitted that the Writ Petition was also
misconceived in both fact and law as it relied upon erroneous factual
assertions and was contrary to the settled position of law. It was
submitted on behalf of the respondent that the learned Tribunal held
that the 2003 Regulations, including provisions of pre-mature
retirement of employees of Airports Authority of India are illegal and
not binding on the workmen and were in contravention of the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Airports
Authority of India Act, 1994 i.e. Section 9A of the ID Act, 1947 and
Sections 18(7), 42 and 43 of the AAI Act, 1994 which prescribe
mandatory steps that the Petitioner was required to take prior to
enacting the 2003 Regulations, which it failed to do so.
23. Inter alia, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner's
sole objective in filing the present writ is to circumvent the steps and
procedures it is statutorily mandated to follow under the ID Act, 1947
and the AAI Act, 1994 prior to passing of the 2003 Regulations and
that it was evident from the present writ that the Petitioner had no
intention of following the compulsory procedure enshrined in the
statute in as much as from the date of the Award, 08.12.2016, the
Petitioner has not taken any of the requisite steps or obtained
approvals required under law.
24. The respondent has further contended that the Tribunal was
fully was fully competent and well within its jurisdiction to pass the
impugned award, as it related to the terms of the reference itself as in
the Reference, the learned Tribunal had been asked to :
(a) adjudicate upon the legality of the Petitioner's action
regarding compulsory retirement of employees, on
premature retirement (on the basis of AAI Circular
No.02/2012), and
(b) grant/prescribe a relief to the workmen if the action was
found to be illegal.
25. It was submitted thus on behalf of the respondent that the
Award falls squarely within the scope of the Reference, and therefore,
the learned Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction.
26. The respondent reiterated that the learned Tribunal having been
required to adjudicate upon the legality of the compulsory retirement
of employees based on AII Circular No.02/2012 and it being an
admitted position of the petitioner in the Writ Petition, that this
Circular was issued under Regulation 12(5) of the 2003 Regulations
and Regulation 12(5) of the 2003 Regulations contained a provision of
premature retirement and Circular No.02/2012 was issued under this
regulation and thus Circular No.02/2012 derived its authority and
legitimacy from the 2003 Regulations.
27. Inter alia, the respondent submitted that for the learned
Tribunal to decide on the legality of Circular No.02/2012, it had to
consider whether the parent instrument Airports Authority of India
(General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees)
Regulations, 2003 was legal and it is evident that unless the learned
Tribunal considered the legality of the said 2003 Regulations, it could
not have decided the Reference. It was thus submitted that the learned
Tribunal therefore, acted within its jurisdiction deciding that the
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 were illegal and not
binding.
28. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the respondent that in
the light of the reference, the legality of the 2003 Regulations had to
be adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal, as this constituted a
question implicit within the reference and that Circular No.02/2012
had been issued under the 2003 Regulations and derives its authority
entirely from the 2003 Regulations and that the learned Tribunal had
to decide on the legality of 2003 Regulations in order to decide the
reference as this was the only way by which the learned Tribunal
could have adjudicated the reference with regard to the Circular
No.2/2012 and that was by examining the legality of the 2003
Regulations itself. It was submitted by the respondent that the question
of legality of the 2003 Regulations was implicit and inherent within
the reference inasmuch as the legality of the Circular No.02/2012 was
dependent in terms of the legality of the 2003 Regulations and thus the
jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal extended to the reference, which
included questions inherent or implicit within it and that if the
reference required the learned Tribunal's consideration and
adjudication on a question implicit within it, the learned Tribunal was
well within its jurisdiction to pass the award.
29. Inter alia the respondent placed reliance on the verdict of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Workmen, (1966) 2
LLJ 194 on observations in para-6 which reads to the effect that:
"6. The first question that has been raised on behalf of the
appellant is that there was no reference on the question of
the status of C rank officers and the tribunal went beyond
the terms of reference when it decided that C rank officers
were workmen...We are of the opinion that the first term of
reference had implicit in it the question whether C rank
officers were workmen or not... We are therefore of the
opinion that the first term of reference when it posed the
question whether the appellant was justified in imposing the
condition that the workmen promoted as C rank officers
were governed by the rules of the bank as applicable to such
officers had impliedly raised the question whether C rank
officers were workmen or not, for only on that basis could
the reference be made."
30. The respondent further submitted that in the present case an
identical situation as in Syndicate Bank (Supra) had occurred. It was
further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the learned Tribunal
was fully competent to hear even such matters in which the vires of
statutory provisions were to be decided.
31. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondent on the
provision of Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which
reads to the effect that:
― (4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute
to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under
this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate
Government has specified the points of dispute for
adjudication,5 the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the
National Tribunal, as the case may be] shall confine its
adjudication to those points and matters incidental
thereto.‖
32. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that assuming
without conceding that the reference did not directly or implicitly
require the legality of the Airports Authority of India (General
Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations,
2003 to be considered, nevertheless this was a question incidental to
the ascertainment of the legality of Circular No. 2/2012 and that the
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003, were inextricably
linked with the Circular No.02/2012. The respondent thus submitted
that the learned Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction in any
manner and that there was no error in its findings and that it had rather
passed a very reasoned order detailing the manner in which the
petitioner had failed to comply with Section 9 (A) of the ID Act, 1947
as well as the Section 42 and 43 of the Airport Authority of India Act.
Inter alia the respondent denied that the 2003 Regulations were
notified after following the due process of law. It is submitted by the
respondent that in terms of Section 18(7) of the Airport Authority of
India Act, 1994 which reads to the effect that:
―(7) After the expiry of the period of one year, or the
extended period, as referred to in sub-section (2), all the
officers and other employees transferred and appointed to
the Authority, other than those opting not to be the officers
or employees of the Authority within such period, shall be
governed by the rules and regulations made by the Authority
in respect of the service conditions of the officers and other
employees of the said Authority.‖
after the expiry of the period of one year or the extended period
provided in Section 18 (2) of the Act, the officials and other
employees of the petitioner were to be governed by the rules and
regulations to be made by the petitioner in respect of their service but
no such rules and regulations were framed by the petitioner till the
year 2003 and the petitioner issued an office order dated 31.03.1997
which is also annexed to the writ petition as Annexure -3 which states
as under:
―...every officer or other employee of the Authority
shall hold his office or service therein by the same
tenure at the same remuneration upon the same terms
and conditions, with the same obligations, rights and
privileges as to leave, passage, insurance,
superannuation scheme, provident fund, other funds,
retirement, pension, gratuity and other benefits as
he/she had held in the National and International
Airports Authority Division of Airports Authority of
India.."
33. It was thus submitted by the respondent that as per the office
order dated 31.03.1997 referred to hereinabove, the officers and other
employees were to be governed by the same conditions of service as
they were governed by when they were a part of International Airports
Authority Division and National Airports Authority Division and that
these conditions include provisions regarding the retirement and
retirement benefits and therefore any change in the retirement
provisions would mean a change in conditions of service and that the
petitioner was bound to follow the due procedure of law for the
formulation of any such conditions of service.
34. It was submitted further by the respondent through its counter
affidavit that Section 42 (2)(b) of the Airport Authority of India Act,
1994 empowers the petitioner to make regulations providing for
conditions of service and remuneration of officers and other
employees of the petitioner and that Section 42(4) of the said
enactment states that the regulations made by the petitioner under the
Act shall have effect only after their approval by the Central
Government and their publication in the Official Gazette. It was thus
submitted by the respondent that the 2003 Regulations did not receive
the approval of the Central Government at any stage and that the
petitioner had failed to produce a single document to show that the
2003 Regulations were approved by the Central Government. The
respondent further submitted that in terms of Section 43 of the
Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the regulation made under the
Act is required to be laid before each House of Parliament for
approval.
35. Section 42(2)(b), Section 42 (4) and Section 43 of the Airport
Authority of India Act, 1994 provide as follows:
―Section 42. Power to make regulations.- (1) The Authority
may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act and the
rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which
provisions is necessary or expedient for the purpose of
giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
Section 42(2)- Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such regulations may provide for-
(a)........
(b)- the conditions of service and the remuneration of
officers and other employees to be appointed by the
Authority under sub-section (2) of section 10.
(c)....
(d)....
(e)....
(f)....
(g)....
(h)....
(i)....
(j)....
(k)....
(l)....
(m)....
(n)....
(o)....
Section 42(3) .........
Section 42(4)- No regulation made by the Authority
under this section shall have effect until it has been
approved by the Central Government and published in
the Official Gazette.
Section 42(5) .........
Section 42(6) .........‖
―Section 43- Rules and regulations to be laid before
Parliament.--Every rule and every regulation made
under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in
session, for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any
modification in the rule or regulation, as the case may
be, or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation, as
the case may be, should not be made, the rule or
regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so,
however, that any such modification or annulment
shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule or regulation."
36. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the
2003 Regulations were not tabled before each House of Parliament
which was a mandatory condition and that this provision was
expressly inserted into the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 in
order to ensure that there are checks and balances in place to review
any regulation made by the petitioner before its adoption so that no
such regulations suffer from infirmities such as being detrimental,
unfair, arbitrary, discriminatory, to the employees of the petitioner.
The respondent has further submitted that the Airports Authority of
India management did not formulate the regulations stipulated in
Section 18(7) of the Airports Authority of India Act and issued an
Office Order dated 31.03.1997 referred to hereinabove that every
officer and other employee shall be governed by the same conditions
of service as they were when they were employees of the National
Airports Division and International Airports Division and that vide its
letter dated 03.04.1997, the Ministry of Civil Aviation stated that this
adoption of service conditions by the Board was in the nature of
regulations of service and that the Airports Authority of India may
initiate action on preparing a draft/ Gazette Notification for the same
which would have to be vetted by the Ministry of Law before being
notified. The said letter dated 03.04.1997 of the Under Secretary to the
Government of India reads to the effect that:
―To
The Executive Director (P&A)
Airport Authority of India, (National Airports Division)
Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi-110008
Subject:-Framing the terms & conditions of service of the
employees of erstwhile IAAI/NAA.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to this provisions contained in
Section 42(2)(b) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994
which empowers the Authority to frame the conditions of service
and remuneration of officers and other employees to be appointed
by the Authority under Sub Section 2 of Section 10.
2. The Ministry of Law; while examining the recent question
regarding the interpretation of Section 18(2) and 18(7) of the Act
have given an opinion that the service conditions adopted by the
Board of AAI on 31st March, 1997 are in the nature of regulations
of service providing the conditions of the service of the employees
and officers of the Authority (extract of the relevant note is
enclosed).
3. Under the circumstances, AAI may initiate action immediately
for preparing a draft Gazette Notification to be issued by the
Central Government in this regard which has to be got vetted by
the Ministry of Law before it is notified in the Gazette.‖
37. The respondent has further submitted that the petitioner
prepared the 2003 Regulations and straight away got it published in
the Official Gazette without taking the requisite approval from the
Central Government and without tabling the Regulations before each
House of Parliament and that the petitioner did not follow the
mandatory procedure laid down by the Airports Authority of India
Act, 1994 while formulating the 2003 Regulations and therefore, the
2003 Regulations were legally invalid and it was reiterated by the
respondent that as per the Airports Authority of India Act, the
approval by the Central Government and laying the regulations before
each House of Parliament are mandatory conditions stipulated for the
formulation of any regulation and that if these conditions were not
fulfilled by formulating the regulations, they are not legally valid.
38. The respondent further submitted that the International Airports
Authority of India (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1980
contained no provision regarding the premature retirement of
employees as provided in Airports Authority of India (General
Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations,
2003 nor the International Airport Authority Act nor the National
Airport Authority Act contained any such provision. The respondent
further submitted that the Central Government provided for protection
of service to its employees, who came to National Airports Authority
by incorporating the stated clause in para 5 of its letter dated
22.09.1989 and therefore, an additional measure of protection was
provided to the employees who were transferred from the Civil
Aviation Department to National Airports Authority. The respondent
thus submitted that the provisions regarding premature retirement
under Rule 12(5) of the Airports Authority of India (General
Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations,
2003 were tantamount to imposing new/additional conditions of
service on the employees of the petitioner and that there was no
provision regarding the premature retirement in the conditions of
service of the employees before 2003 Regulations and thus by the
inclusion thereof, there was a change in the conditions of service.
39. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner issued the
Corporate HRM Circular No. 02/2012 dated 17.01.2012 constituting a
Review Committee for different employees in the establishment of the
petitioner, wherein the procedure was laid down for the Review
Committee for taking a decision on premature retirement of
employees under Regulation 12(5) of the 2003 Regulations and that
the Circular No.02/2012 merely provided for a procedure for the
Review Committee to take decisions as per Regulation 12(5) of the
2003 Regulations and thereafter, Circular No.02/2012 derives its
power and authority entirely and exclusively from the 2003
Regulations. Apart from reiterating that the approval of the Central
Government and placing of the 2003 Regulations before the
Parliament were the essential and mandatory conditions prescribed
under the Airport Authority of India Act for the formulation of any
regulations by the petitioner, which had not been complied with and it
was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that in framing the
2003 Regulations the requisite notice under Section 9A of the ID Act,
1947 was required to be served on the workmen as a mandatory
condition since the same amounted to a change in service conditions
and thus, the regulations formulated without the due procedure laid
down by Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and the ID Act,1947
were bad in law and therefore legally invalid.
40. Inter alia the respondent submitted that the petitioner had
violated the terms of Section 4 and 5 of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 which were applicable to the petitioner.
The respondent further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was
given to the Union or the workmen before formulation of the
provision of the premature retirement or the change in conditions of
service which apart from violating the mandatory provisions of the
Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and the ID Act, 1947 also
violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. It was further
submitted on behalf of the respondent that the premature retirement is
certainly a condition of service that is detrimental to the fate of service
of the workmen and before introducing any such condition of service,
the petitioner was required to have afforded an opportunity of hearing
to the workmen. The respondent has further submitted that the
petitioner appeared only twice before the learned Tribunal and
therefore stopped pursuing its case and thus the petitioner cannot be
allowed to take benefit from its own lack of representation in ID No.
39/2014.
41. Inter alia the respondent has further submitted that the learned
Tribunal had rightly observed that there was no document on record to
show that the 2003 Regulations were approved by the Central
Government and that the 2003 Regulations were tabled before each
House of Parliament and further submitted that even now in the
present petition the petitioner has still not placed any document on
record to show that the 2003 Regulations were in fact approved by the
Central Government and were laid before each House of Parliament
and that the petitioner had made only made bald averments regarding
the approval by the Central Government and the placing of the 2003
Regulations before each House of the Parliament.
42. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent that
even if it was accepted that the petitioner had placed the 2003
Regulations before the Rajya Sabha, the same does not fulfill the
requirement of law of placing of the Regulations before each
House of Parliament and thus the petitioner has sought to
circumvent the system of checks and balances provided in law in
passing of the 2003 Regulations and had violated the due process
and procedure of law and thus the learned Tribunal had correctly
held that the 2003 Regulations were illegal and not binding on the
workmen.
43. The respondent further submitted that the averments made in
the petition that the terms and conditions of the service of employees
of the petitioner as per the 2003 Regulations were approved by the
Board of the petitioner on 31.03.1997 were erroneous and false and
that the office order dated 31.03.1997 itself indicated that no
Regulations were formulated in the year 1997 and that the petitioner
had declared that the employees would be governed by the same terms
and conditions of the service as they were governed by when they
were employees of the International Airports Authority of India and
National Airports Authority. The respondent has further submitted that
the Ministry of Law has never referred to the 2003 Regulations in the
letter dated 03.04.1997 and that the respondent and its workmen had
no access to the 2003 Regulations to enable them to raise any
objection and no notice of the change in service conditions as
mandatory in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was issued to them.
The respondent has further submitted that the reliance was rightly
placed by the learned Tribunal on the verdicts U.P. State Electricity
Board & Another Vs. Hari Shankar Jain & Others, M/s Tata Iron &
Steel Co Ltd. v. the Workmen and the Karnal Co-operative Sugar
Mills Ltd. v. the Labour Court & Others and the respondent thus
sought the dismissal of the writ petition and sought that the impugned
award dated 08.12.2016 of the learned Tribunal in ID No.39/2014 be
upheld.
44. The petitioner through its rejoinder to the counter affidavit of
the respondent reiterated the averments made in the petition and
submitted that the learned Tribunal vide the impugned award had
exceeded its jurisdiction and that it ought to have been confined itself
to the reference made and ought not to have travelled beyond the same
as laid down in National Engineering Industry Vs. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2000SC 469, and as the petitioner submitted that the
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003, were notified after
following the due procedure of law and submitted that there was no
violation of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the
contention of the respondent that the 2003 Regulations were not
notified or tabled before the Parliament was a wrong statement and
further submitted that the respondent is not a recognized union at
present. It was submitted by the petitioner that the 2003 Regulations
were tabled in Parliament and got the approval of the Central
Government and evidence in this regard was placed on record and that
the Gazette notification was prepared as per the instruction of the
Ministry of Civil Aviation and further submitted that without taking
the approval from the Central Government or without being tabled
before the Parliament, the Regulations could not have been notified.
45. Inter alia through the written synopsis submitted by the
respondent it was contended that the submissions made through the
counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondent were reiterated
with it having already been submitted that ID Act did not prescribe
any period of limitation for workmen to raise any dispute and that the
principle of delay and laches cannot be used to sustain manifest
illegality and that the petitioner's non-compliance with the mandatory
requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Airport
Authority of India Act, 1994 clearly constituted such manifest
illegality.
46. Written submissions have been submitted on behalf of either
side and oral arguments were advanced.
47. The petitioner through its written submissions reiterates the
contention raised that the learned Tribunal could not have declared the
Regulations of 2003, to be illegal as the same was not within its
province in terms of the verdict of this Court in D.T.C. Mazdoor
Congress (Regd.) and Ors. V. Union of India & Anr.: ILR (1986) 1
DEL-158, and it is submitted that the word incident and "incidental
issue" can never be a substantive issue like validity of a statute and
reliance in relation thereto was placed on the verdict of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd vs Workmen:
AIR 1967 SC 469, it was thus contended on behalf of the petitioner to
the effect:
―"21. ...the Tribunal must confine its adjudication
to the points of dispute referred and matters
incidental thereto. In other words, the Tribunal is
not free to enlarge the scope of the dispute referred
to it but must confine its attention to the points
specifically mentioned and anything which is
incidental thereto.
The word 'incidental' means according to Webster's
New World
Dictionary:
"happening or likely to happen as a result of or in
connection with something more important; being
an incident; casual; hence, secondary or minor, but
usually associated:"
"Something incidental to a dispute" must therefore
mean something happening as a result of or; in
connection with the dispute or associated with the
dispute. The dispute is the fundamental thing while
something incidental thereto is an adjunct to it.
Something incidental, therefore, cannot cut at the
root of the main thing to which it is an adjunct."‖
48. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the respondent through its
written submissions on the verdict of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in L.
Chandrakumar v. Union of India & Others : (1997) 3 SCO 261 with
observations in para 99 thereof which reads to the effect:
"99...The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and
Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the
competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory
provisions and rules... It will not, therefore, be open for
litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases
where they question the vires of statutory legislations
(except where the legislation which creates the particular
Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal concerned."
(Emphasis supplied)
49. On behalf of the respondent, it has also been contended that the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not prescribe any period of
limitation for the workman to raise a labour dispute and that the
principle of delay and laches cannot be used to sustain manifest
illegality and that the petitioner‟s non-compliance with mandatory
requirements under the Industrial Disputes Act and Airports Authority
India, Act, 1994 constitutes such manifest illegality concealing atleast
three such office orders. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the
respondent that despite there being no stay of the operation of the
impugned award, such orders passed by the petitioner were apparent
to bring forth that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean
hands and reliance was thus placed on behalf respondent on the
verdict of the Supreme Court in Ramjas of Division Bench of this
Court in Sripal v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.: 242
(2017) DLT 482, wherein it is observed to the effect:-
" 14. The principle that a person who does not come to
the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on
the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such
person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only
to the petitions filed under Articles 32,226, and 136 but
also to the cases instituted in other courts and judicial
forums. The object underlying the principle is that every
court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect
itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of
justice by restoring to falsehood or by making
misstatement or by suppressing facts which have
bearing on adjudication of issue(s) arising in the case."
50. On a consideration of the entire available record and rival
submissions made on behalf of either side, it is apparent that Section
9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been complied with in
the instant case by the petitioner before bringing in the condition of
compulsory pre-mature retirement on attaining the age of 50 years in
the event an employee was considered to be:
a) Inefficient or;
b) On doubtful integrity or on
c) Was medically unfit,
even if they were to be so retired following the due process of law.
51. Thus the impugned award dated 8.12.2016 passed by the CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Karkardooma has correctly answered the reference
to the effect that as no notice was given in terms of Section 9-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the change in service conditions by
incorporation of the term of compulsory retirement of employees on
the basis of the Airports Authority of India‟s circular No.02/2012 was
illegal and that it was not legally binding on the workmen in as much
as read with Section 18(7) of the Airports Authority India, Act, 1994.
52. As regards the contention that has been raised on behalf of the
petitioner that the impugned award held the Airports Authority India
(General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees)
Regulations, 2003 illegal and that it was not within the province of the
learned Tribunal to so determine the vires of the same, it is essential to
observe that the Clause 12 of the said document i.e. Airports Authority
India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of
Employees) Regulations, 2003 had to be analyzed by the learned
Tribunal in as much as it dealt with the superannuation and retirement
of employees and formed part and parcel of the Airports Authority
India (General Conditions of Service and Remuneration of
Employees) Regulations, 2003. Thus the legality of the said
Regulations of 2003 had essentially and incidentally in terms of
Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to be looked into
by the learned Tribunal concerned and it could thus not be contended
on behalf of the petitioner that it was not within the jurisdiction of the
learned Tribunal to adjudicate thus on the legality of the said
Regulations of 2003.
53. As regards the contention that has been raised on behalf of the
petitioner that the findings of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the
circular No.02/2012 was directly published in the Official Gazette in
contravention of the provisions of Section 42(4) of Airports Authority
India, Act, 1994 without obtaining approval from the Central
Government was erroneous, it is essential to observe that Section
42(4) of the Airports Authority of India, Act, 1994 already reproduced
elsewhere hereinabove categorically provides that no regulation made
by the Airports Authority of India in terms of the said enactment could
have any effect unless it had been approved by the Central
Government and published in Official Gazette. The said regulations of
the Airports Authority of India are indicated to have been published in
the Gazette (Extraordinay) on 23.05.2003 vide notification F.
No.AAI/PERS/EDPA/Reg./2002 as issued by the Ministry of Civil
Aviation and as per Clause 2 thereof were to come into force on the
date of their publication in the official Gazette i.e. 23.05.2003.
54. However, Section 43 of the said enactment i.e. Airports
Authority India, Act, 1994, is also categorical that every rule and
regulation made under the said enactment is to be mandatorily laid, as
soon as it may be made after it is made, before each House of
Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days
which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately
following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both
Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation or
agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or
regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or
be of no effect, as the case may be but that, however, any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule or regulation.
55. The contention that was raised on behalf of the respondent was
categorical to the effect that these regulations were not placed before
the each House of the Parliament and did not get its approval and thus
has not appropriately been framed and published in the Official
Gazette in terms of Section 44(4) of the Airports Authority India, Act,
1994.
56. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has sought to contend that there has
been no violation of any mandatory provisions of the Airports
Authority of India, Act, 1994 and has chosen to put forth that the said
rules had been taken up by the Rajya Sabha on 19.8.2003, but as
rightly contended on behalf of the respondent, there is not an iota of a
document placed on record to show that the said Regulations were
placed before the Lok Sabha for its approval. Thus the mere
contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the said Regulations
had been so placed in the Lok Sabha and had got the approval of the
Lok Sabha cannot be accepted.
57. The Court has taken into consideration the verdict of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Veneet Agarwal Vs. Union of India &
Ors. in Appeal (Civil) No. 2565/2005, a judgment dated 31.10.2007,
where Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act,
1992 was under consideration and the observations therein that the
said Section 31 thereof which reads to the effect that:
"31. Rules and regulations to be laid before
Parliament.--- Every rule and every regulation
made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may
be after it is made, before each House of
Parliament, while it is in session, for a total
period of thirty days which may be comprised in
one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session or the
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree
in making any modification in the rule or
regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or
regulation should not be made, the rule or
regulation shall thereafter have effect only in
such modified form or be of no effect, as the case
may be; so, however, that any such modification
or annulment shall be without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done under that
rule or regulation.‖,
was directory.
58. It is however essential to observe that in the instant case, by the
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service And
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003, there is a
fundamental change in the service condition of the employees of the
petitioner, without compliance of Section 9A of the ID Act, 1947, and
in these terms where fundamental changes affecting rights and duties
of employees are concerned and affected the non-compliance of
Section 43 of the AAI Act, 1994 cannot be overlooked, and so that
such compliance of Section 9A of the ID Act, 1947 is made, the
requirement of Section 43 of the AAI Act, 1994 has to be considered
to be mandatory.
59. Furthermore, it is essential to observe that the chart of changes
and new conditions between the Regulations of 1980 i.e. the
International Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of
Service) Regulations, 1980 and the Regulations of 2003 i.e. the
Airports Authority of India (General Conditions of Service and
Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003 bring forth significant
changes in the scope and ambit of the Regulations which apparently
necessitate the requisite compliance of Section 43 of the Airports
Authority of India Act, 1994 which apparently having not been done
in the instant case has caused grave prejudice to the respondent. The
said chart of changes and conditions submitted on behalf of the
respondent is to the effect:
S. SUBJECT/SE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS COMMENTS
No. RVICE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
CONDITION AUTHORITY OF INDIA (GENERAL
INDIA (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF
CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND
SERVICE) REMUNERATION
REGULATIONS, OF EMPLOYEES)
1980 REGULATIONS,
1. Title "in exercise of the "In exercise of the 2003
powers conferred by powers conferred by regulations
clause (b) of the sub- clause (b) of the sub- omit the words
regulation (2) of section (2) of Section "with the
Section 37 of 42 of the Airports previous
International Authority of India approval of the
Airports Authority Act, 1994 (55 of Central
Act, 1971 (43 of 1994), the Airport Government"
1971) read with sub- Authority of India
section (2) of section hereby makes the
38 of the Act and all following
other powers regulations,
hereunto enabling namely;-―
and with the
previous approval of
the Central
Government the
International
Airports Authority of
India, hereby makes
the following
regulations;
namely:-―
2. Scope and These Regulations These Regulations
Application are applicable only are applicable to
to employees of the employees of the
International AAI, after the
Airports Authority of merger of the
India. National and
International
Divisions.
3. Division Reg. 4: "The This division
between Non- employees are was introduced
Executive and further categorized by the 2003
Executive as Executive and Regulations.
Non-Executives‖.
Designations and
pay scales are
divided on this basis.
4. Medical Test Reg. 5(d): ".....fire Reg. 6(b): As per the 2003
service personnel Employees in fire Regulations,
shall be subject to services continue to any and all
annual/ periodical be governed by this. employees are
medical examination Reg. 6(a): "....the now time.
to ensure their fitness opinion of the
to discharge their medical officer or
functions" medical board....in
this regard shall be
final....an employee
shall be medically
examined any time
during the period of
his/her employment
with the authority"
5. Annual Return Reg. 10(d): "Every This
of Assets and employee shall, on requirement
Liabilities his first appointment was introduced
in the Authority, by the 2003
furnish an annual regulations.
return of assets and
liabilities in the form
prescribed as
specified by the
Authority from time
to time giving the
full particulars.
6. Transfers Reg. 15: Although Reg. 7: Every The distinction
1980 Regulations employee in the between the
state that an service of the Group C & D
employee shall be Authority shall be employees
liable to be liable to be from the other
transferred anywhere transferred in any employees has
in India or abroad, it part of the country been removed,
also states that or abroad. and all
"Group C & D employees
employees, will have been
however, not made subject to
normally be this
transferred to another requirement.
station against their
will."
7. Deputation Reg. 21: " Reg. 8 states that No benefits are
Employees .... may any employee sent specified under
be sent on on deputation shall the 2003
deputation...with the be governed by the Regulations,
prior approval of the 2003 Regulations leaving the
Chairman. The and shall be given Authority with
Deputation of such benefits under 2003 the discretion
employee shall be Regulations. to determine
governed by the the same.
terms to be mutually
agreed upon between
the Authority and the
borrowing
organization.‖
8. Discharge Reg. 12(2): ―During Reg. 10(2): "During 2003
during the period of the period of Regulations
probation probation an probation, an specified that
employee directly employee directly the employee
recruited shall be recruited shall be under probation
liable to be liable to be shall be
discharged if his discharged from discharged
performance is not service without without any
found satisfactory or notice if his/ her requirement of
upto standard‖ performance is not receiving
found satisfactory or notice.
upto standard‖
9. Discharge & Reg. 23(b): Any Reg. 10(2): No Termination
Termination of employee on notice before the and discharge
Service probation shall be termination of of service
given 7 days notice employee on under each
before termination. probation. category has
been made
Reg. 23(c):
Reg. 11(b): much easier, by
Appointment of aAppointment of an vesting the
temporary employee
employee against Authority with
shall be terminated
temporary post shall wider powers.
by giving him/her 24
be terminated
hours notice in
automatically on the
writing or pay in lieu
expiry of the specific
of notice. period for which the
post was sanctioned
Reg. 23 (c): The or he/she was
power of „discharge appointed.
simplicitor‟ will be
exercised only by the Reg. 11(3): The
Chairman. power of „discharge
simplicitor‟ shall be
exercised by
Chairperson or
Appointing
Authority.
10. Compulsory No provision of Reg. 12(5): "Any The 2003
Retirement compulsory pre- employee, who has Regulations
mature retirement for attained the age of introduced this
workmen. 50 years and is provision for
considered to be - compulsory
(i) inefficient, or (ii) retirement of
doubtful integrity, or workmen.
(iii) medically unfit,
may be prematurely
retired by the
competent
authority...‖
11. Hours of Work - Reg. 19: "(1) Every The new
& Attendance employee shall Regulation
comply with all does not
instruction issued mention any
from time to time procedure/guid
relating to elines, etc.
attendance, arrival Instead, it vests
and departure, the the Authority
period and hours of with a blanket,
work for different discretionary
categories of power to issue
employees or to an any instructions
employee and every whatsoever
employee shall be at regarding hours
work at the time of work and
fixed and specified attendance.
by the Authority
from time to time.‖
12. Attendance Reg. 20: The new
"Attendance shall be Regulation
marked daily does not
according to the mention any
method and procedure/guid
procedure as may be elines, etc.
specified by the Instead, it vests
authority from time the Authority
to time.‖ with a blanket,
discretionary
power to decide
any procedure
at any time.
13. Miscellaneous Appointments, Reg. 24: This
Items Methods of "Compliance of Regulation
Recruitment, Types other instructions removes a
of Recruitment, issued by the number of
Creation of Posts, Authority- Every specified rules
Seniority, Fixation of employee shall and procedures
Seniority, comply with such under the 1980
Reservation, Direct other instructions as Regulations,
Recruitment, may be issued by the and replaces
Liability for Defence Authority from time them with the
Service, to time. widest possible
Departmental blanket,
Promotion, Joining discretionary
Time, Allowances power to issue
and Advances, Pay any instruction
on First at any time.
Appointment, Pay on
Promotion, Pay in
case of Deputationist
from Central or State
Department or PSUs,
Pay in case of
Superannuated
Government
Servants re-
employed in the
Authority,
Increments, Ex.
Gratia Grant.
60. Thus as the requisite mandatory procedure of checks and
balances incorporated under Section 43 of the Airports Authority
India, Act, 1994 had not been complied with by the petitioner and it is
apparent that there is no merit in the petition and that there is no merit
in the prayer made by the petitioner.
61. The petition and the accompanying applications CM Appl. Nos.
23073/2017, 46221/2017 and 12940/2018 are thus dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
NOVEMBER 01, 2018
SV/vm/NC
