Kerala High Court
Ai Airport Services Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 1
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.4050 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD
2ND FLOOR, JANVILLA CITY CENTRE, ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA,
VELLAYAMBALAM-SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010
2 DEEPA R
MANAGER-HR/ADMIN 2ND FLOOR, JANVILLA CITY CENTRE,
ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA, VELLAYAMBALAM-SASTHAMANGALAM
ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 010
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICEDR CENTRAL
TRIVANDRUM, OFFICER OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) UPPALAM ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
OTHER PRESENT:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 2
2024:KER:71107
SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR PETITIONER
SRI.TULASI PANICKER, CGC, SRI.RENJITH TR, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2217/2017, 2851/2017 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 3
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2217 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.4051 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 AIR INDIA SATS AIRPORT SERVICES PVT. LTD
2ND FLOOR, JANVILA CITY CENTRE, ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA
VELLAYAMBALAM- SASTHAMANGALAM ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM PO
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER HR/ADM.
2 DEEPA R
MANAGER-HR/ADMIN, 2ND FLOOR, JANVILA CITY CENTRE,
ABOVE DOMINOS PIZZA VELLAYAMBALAM- SASTHAMANGALAM
ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010,
KERALA
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CENTRAL
TRIVANDRUM OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER
(CENTRAL) UPPALAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
SRI.RENJITH TR,SR.PP, SRI.SUVIN R MENON, CGC
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 4
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 2851 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.3454 OF 2016 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/S:
BIRD WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES(P)LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOURAV
BHATIA,AIRLINE BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, COCHIN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERRY, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
S.SHYAM
KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE
REPRESENTED BY THE LABOUR ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER(CENTRAL), KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN,OLIMUGAL,
KAKKANADU, COCHIN.682 030.
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI.110 001.
BY ADVS.
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL, SRI.RENJITH TR,SR.PP
SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 5
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4463 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.1405 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AIR INDIA
AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.), REPRESENTED BY MR.
THAMILARASU, TERMINAL MANAGER
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COCHIN – 683111,
KERALA, PIN - 683111
2 MR. ASWINI SHARMA
AGED 68 YEARS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
GSD BUILDING, AIR INDIA COMPLEX TERMINAL 2, IGI
AIRPORT NEW DELHI - 110037, PIN - 110037
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
K.JOHN MATHAI
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
– 682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 6
2024:KER:71107
SRI.RENJITH TR, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 7
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4582 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.1404 OF 2021 OF
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AIR INDIA
AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.) REPRESENTED BY MR.
THAMILARASU, TERMINAL MANAGER
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, COCHIN – 683111,
KERALA, PIN - 683111
2 MR. ASWINI SHARMA
AGED 68 YEARS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (CEO) REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
GSD BUILDING, AIR INDIA COMPLEX TERMINAL 2, IGI
AIRPORT NEW DELHI - 110037, PIN - 110037
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 8
2024:KER:71107
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ NR, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 9
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6537 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.89 OF 2022 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY CH RAMBABU REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, GSD
BUILDING AIR INDIA COMPLEX, TERMINAL 2, IGI AIRPORT
NEW DELHI - 110037\, PIN - 110037
2 MR. MANOJ TV
AGED 50 YEARS
SR. MANAGER M/S AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT AIRPORT PO
KARIPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KERALA – 673647,
PIN - 673647
3 MR. SURYA PRAKASH TRIPATHI
AGED 50 YEARS
AGM-CH, AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.) HR
DEPARTMENT, AI UNITY COMPLEX PALLAVARAM CANTONMENT,
CHENNAI – 600043, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600043
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 10
2024:KER:71107
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN
– 682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
SRI.RENJITH TR, SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 11
2024:KER:71107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6546 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN ST NO.90 OF 2022 OF
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:
1 AI AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY CH RAMBABU REGD. OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, GSD
BUILDING AIR INDIA COMPLEX, TERMINAL 2, IGI AIRPORT
NEW DELHI - 110037, PIN - 110037
2 MR. MANOJ TV
AGED 50 YEARS
SR. MANAGER M/S AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD.
CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT AIRPORT PO
KARIPUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT KERALA – 673647,
PIN - 673647
3 MR. SURYA PRAKASH TRIPATHI
AGED 50 YEARS
AGM-CH, AIR INDIA AIRPORT SERVICES LTD. (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS AIR INDIA AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.) HR
DEPARTMENT, AI UNITY COMPLEX PALLAVARAM CANTONMENT,
CHENNAI – 600043, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600043
BY ADVS. SR.ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
JAI MOHAN
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 12
2024:KER:71107
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL), COCHIN
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN OLIMUGAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN;
682030, KERALA, PIN - 682030
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ NR,PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.2215/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 2215 OF 2017 & conn. Cases 13
2024:KER:71107
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. Nos. 2215, 2217, 2851 of 2017
and 4463, 4582, 6537 & 6546 of 2022
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2024
ORDER
These Criminal Miscellaneous cases are connected and
therefore, I am disposing of these Criminal Miscellaneous cases
by a common order.
2. It is conceded by both sides that the point raised
in these cases are similar and the legal issue raised is also the
same. Hence, I am disposing of these Criminal Miscellaneous
cases by a common order.
3. I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. No. 2215/2017
first. The petitioners herein are arrayed as 1 st accused and 2nd
accused in ST No. 4050/2016, which is pending now before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The
offences alleged against the petitioners are under secs. 12(1) of
2024:KER:71107
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for
short 'Act') and Rule 25(2)(viii) of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (for short 'Rules').
A perusal of Annexure-A complaint would show that the allegation
therein are purportedly based on an inspection conducted by the
2nd respondent on 14.07.2016. Vide inspection report, the 2 nd
respondent has alleged that the 1 st petitioner was employing
contract labour in airport services in ground handling and cargo
handling to various airlines at Thiruvananthapuram International
Airport without obtaining licence. Vide the aforementioned
report, the 2nd respondent directed the petitioners to rectify the
irregularities and report compliance to the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central). According to the petitioners, the ground
handling activities undertaken by the petitioners does not come
under the purview of the Act and Rules. Hence, it is alleged that
the offence is not attracted. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous
case is filed.
4. Heard Sr. Counsel, Adv. E.K.Nandakumar
assisted by his retaining counsel and also Adv. S.Shyam, who
2024:KER:71107
appeared for the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2851/2017.
5. The main contention of the petitioners is that as
per Sec.42 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the
authority is empowered to make regulations. In exercise of the
powers conferred by Sec. 42 of the Airports Authority of India
Act, Airport Authority of India (General Management, Entry for
Ground Handling Services) Regulations, 2007 (for short '2007
Regulations') was framed. Regulation 3 of the 2007 Regulations
grant discretion to the carriers to carry out ground handling
activities at metropolitan airports, namely, the airports located at
Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore and Hyderabad by
engaging the services of the authorities mentioned in 2007
Regulations. Regulation 3(2) further clarifies that for all other
airports, excluding metropolitan airports, self handling may also
be permitted to the airlines, excluding foreign airlines, in addition
to the entities specified in Regulation 3(1). It is also submitted
that all foreign carriers can only undertake ground handling
activities through the modes prescribed in Regulation 3 of the
2007 Regulations. Hence, it is submitted that the 1 st petitioner
2024:KER:71107
falls within the category of "subsidiary companies of the national
carrier, that is, National Aviation Company of India Limited (now
Air India Ltd.) or its joint ventures specialized in ground handling
services" being a joint venture between Air India Limited, India's
national carrier, and SATS Limited. Annexure-C is produced to
show that Chairman, Airport Authority of India was informed that
the 1st petitioner would be carrying out ground handling functions
at Kozhikode, Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi airports in a
phased manner. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner provides
services to the carriers. These services are inclusive of the
training provided to its employees, uniforms for the employees
and equipments to perform ground handling activities. According
to the petitioners, the contracts entered into with the airlines are
not labour contract for providing manpower to the customer and
therefore, do not attract the provisions. The following points are
raised by the petitioners to contend that the Act and Rules are not
applicable to the 1st petitioner.
"(a) The 1st Petitioner does not fall within the definition of
a contractor under the Act inasmuch as it has not undertaken
to produce "a given result" through contract labour. As stated
2024:KER:71107
above, the 1 st
Petitioner provides services to the carriers
including training, uniforms and equipments to perform
ground handling activities.
(b) The contracts entered into between the 1st Petitioner
and the carriers are on a principal to principal basis having
been clearly authorized under the 2007 Regulations. As
already enumerated above, the 2007 Regulations authorize the
Petitioners to enter into a contract for ground handling
activities with the carriers. Thus, there is a specific legal and
statutory sanction given to the Petitioners to enter into a
contract for providing ground handling services and therefore,
they are clearly excluded from the provisions of the Act and
the Rules."
6. The petitioners also relied the judgment of the
Bombay High Court, which is produced as Annexure-D in
Crl.M.C. 2215/2017. The Central Government Counsel submitted
that the Karnataka High Court rejected similar contention as per
Willy Ko v. State of Karnataka [MANU/KA/6247/2019]. CGC
also submitted that the challenge against the same is dismissed
by the Apex Court also.
7. This Court considered the contention of the
petitioners and the CGC. Admittedly, the same contentions are
raised before the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court
2024:KER:71107
considered the matter in detail in Annexure-D produced in
Crl.M.C. No. 2215/2017. The relevant portion of the above
judgment is extracted hereunder :
"6. Even otherwise, perusal of the relevant regulations,
more particularly Regulation 3 of the Airports Authority of
India (General Management, Entry for Ground Handling of
Transport Services) Regulations, 2000 (for short "Regulations,
2000") clearly indicates that the operator or carrier may either
carry out ground handling services at an airport by itself or
engage the services of any of the followings.
(I) Airports Authority of India;
(II) The two national carriers Air India & Indian Airlines;
(III) Any other handling agency licensed by the Airports
Authority of India.
The term "Ground Handling" has been defined under Rule 2(e)
of the above Regulations, as under:
"2(e) "Ground Handling" means:
(i) ramp handling and will include activities as specified
in Annexure 'A' to the Regulations;
(ii) traffic handling and will include activities as specified
in Annexure 'B' to the Regulations
(iii) any other activity designated by the Chairman to any
part either of ramp handling or traffic handling."
7. The settlement contract, which is annexed to the
petition indicates that foreign airlines have entered into a
contract in respect of ground handling services, with Air India
2024:KER:71107
and Indian Airlines, and they were authorised under the
Regulations, 2000 to enter into such a contract.
8. Apart from that, the said contract is on principal to
principal basis, and therefore, the question of violation of the
provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,
1970 and the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central
Rules, 1971, does not arise at all, since the provisions of
Regulations, 2000 clearly authorise the Petitioners to enter
into contract of ground handling activities, which are more
specifically enumerated in paragraph 3 of the petition. In our
view, therefore, there is clear non application of mind in
issuing the process. The Apex Court in the case of R. P. Kapur,
Appellant Vs. State of Punjab, Respondent [AIR 1960 SC 866]
has given some of the categories of cases where inherent
jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should exercised,
which are as under:
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a
legal bar against the institution or continuance of the
criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.
Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance,
furnish cases under this category
(ii) Where the allegations in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such
cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is
a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the
First Information Report to decide whether the offence
alleged is disclosed or not.
2024:KER:71107
(iii) Where the allegations made against the
accused person do constitute an offence alleged but
there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of
the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly
fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of
cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal evidence or
where there is evidence which is manifestly and
clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and
cases where there is legal evidence which on its
appreciation may or may not support the accusation in
question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A
the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as
to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not.
That is the function of the trial magistrate, and
ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke
the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend
that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the
accusation made against the accused would not be
sustained."
Ratio of this judgment has been followed in the subsequent
judgment by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604]
9. In the present case, therefore, ratio of both the above
judgments squarely apply to the facts of the present case, since
there is a specific legal sanction given to the Petitioners to
enter into contract and therefore, they are clearly excluded,
even otherwise, from the provisions of the Contract Labour
(Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 the Contract Labour
2024:KER:71107
(Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules, 1971. The
Respondents, therefore, could not have prosecuted the
Petitioners for carrying out the activities of ground handling
activities, which are legally permitted under the Regulations.
10. Impugned complaints filed by the respondents are,
therefore, quashed and set aside. Both the petitions are
allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c).
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, in both the
petitions."
8. I am in respectful agreement with the above
dictum laid down by the Bombay High Court. The Central
Government Counsel submitted that the similar point was
considered by the Karnataka High Court in Willy Ko's case
(supra). But, this Court perused the same. In paragraph 6 of the
above judgment, the Bombay High Court judgment is considered
and distinguished by the Karnataka High Court. Moreover, the
facts in the Karnataka High Court judgment is entirely different
as evident by paragraph 7 of the above judgment. Therefore, on
facts, the Karnataka High Court judgment is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case. In addition to all this, the
petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 2851/2017 produced an information
2024:KER:71107
received under the Right to Information Act. Annexure-A7 is the
information. Annexure-A6 is the application submitted for supply
of information under the RTI Act. The following questions for
information were asked in Annexure-A6.
"(i) Whether the Ground Handling Services provided by M/s.
Air India- SATS Celebi, BWFS and CAPL are treated by the RLC
(Central) as providing Contract Labour on hire to various airlines,
under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970?
(ii) If yes, how many of the above service providers have
accepted themselves as contractors within the meaning of the
aforesaid Act and have obtained licence as contractor providing
contract labour on hire to various airlines"
(iii) Or whether such Ground Handling Services providers
are treated as service providers?
(iv) Whether any inspection was made of the premises of
such service providers or of the concerned airlines where these
aforesaid service providers are providing services, by the Labour
Enforcement Officer under the aforesaid Act?
(v) If yes, whether any Show Cause Notices have been
issued to any of such and/or to all such service providers or not?
(vi) Whether Operators at the IGI Airport such as, Neha
Aviation, Avia Expert, Deevyani International, Universal and Lion
are similarly placed and treated at par with the service providers
such as M/s CAPL Air India - SATS, Celebi and BWFS?
(vii) Whether Operators like M/s Neha Aviation, Avia Expert,
Deevyani International, Universal and Lion are also operating at
the IGI Airport under a licence/permission granted by the
2024:KER:71107
AAI/DIAL?
(viii) In case of non-obtaining of licence as a contractor under
the aforesaid Act, how many service providers like CAPL, Air
India SATS, Celebi and BWFS have been asked to seek licence
under the Act?
(ix) In default, against how many service providers out of
the four aforesaid service providers, prosecution has been
launched against them for violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970?
(x) Whether Air India SATS is a contractor within the
meaning of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 or
not?
(xi) If yes, whether Air India - SATS have been prosecuted
for non-obtaining of licence as contractor and/or violation of
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970?
(xii) If no, the reason why Air India - SATS have not been,
prosecuted so far, for violation of Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act 1970?"
9. Annexure-A7 is the reply and the answer to
question Nos.1 to 12 in Annexure-A7 is extracted hereunder :
"1. No, M/s. Air India, SATS, Celebi, BWFS and CAPL are
principal employers.
2. As mentioned in "1", they are principal employers and
not contractors.
3. Yes
4. No
6. No.
2024:KER:71107
7. No information is available in this office
8. As they are Principal employers, they are not required to
obtain licence under the Act. However, they are required to
obtain Regn. Certificate under the Act.
11&12. As they are Principal employers, the question of
obtaining licence under the Act does not arise."
10. From the above, it is clear that the Act and Rules
are not applicable to the petitioners. Hence, I am of the
considered opinion that these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are to
be allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous cases are
allowed in the following manner.
(1) Crl.M.C. No. 2215/2017 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 4050/2016 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
(2) Crl.M.C. No. 2217/2017 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 4051/2016 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,
2024:KER:71107
Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.
(3) Crl.M.C. No. 2851/2017 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioner in ST No. 3454/2016 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Angamaly are quashed.
(4) Crl.M.C. No. 4463/2022 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 1405/2021 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Angamaly (Temporary) are quashed.
(5) Crl.M.C. No. 4582/2022 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 1404/2021 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Angamaly (Temporary) are quashed.
(6) Crl.M.C. No. 6537/2022 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 89/2022 on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri are
quashed.
(7) Crl.M.C. No. 6546/2022 is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioners in ST No. 90/2022 on the
2024:KER:71107
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri are
quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
2024:KER:71107
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
ANNEX-A COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEING ST
NO. ST NO. 4051/16 ON THE FILES OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEX-B TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 2/6/2010
(AIC SL.NO. 3/2010)
ANNEX-C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
REF.NO.RO/CMD.10/793 DATED 22/9/2010 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
ANNEX-D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION
BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN
AIR INDIA LTD AND ANR. V. S GUNAHARI AND
ANR. IN WPC 277 OF 2003 AND WPC 278 OF 2003
DATED 8/6/2015.
2024:KER:71107
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 Copy of notification issued by Ministry of
Labour and Employment dated 30/11/1987
Annexure R2 Copy of Attendance Sheet in August 2016
Annexure R3 Copy of Inspection Note dated 27.08.2016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WFS AND
CIAL DATED 3.1.2009.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND JET AIRWAYS DATED 15.5.2016.
ANNEXURE A1 ATTESTED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ANGAMALY, DT.
22.11.2016.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
MR. LALITH BHARATHDWAJ UNDER THE RTI ACT.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE A6 DATED
2.7.2012.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE A1 CASE.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ASST. LABOUR
COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL, ERNAKULAM) DATED
27.8.2016 WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE.
2024:KER:71107
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES)
REGULATIONS, 2018
2024:KER:71107
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE
HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT, ANGAMALY, BEING ST 1404 OF 2021
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES)
REGULATIONS, 2018
2024:KER:71107
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANJERI, BEING ST 89 OF 2022.
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANJERI IN ST 89 OF 2022
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES)
REGULATIONS, 2018
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION
BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN
AIR INDIA LTD. AND ANR. V. S GUNAHARI AND
ANR. IN WP(C) 277 0F 2003 AND WPC 278 OF
2003 DATED 08.06.2015
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRLMC NO. 4582 OF 2022
2024:KER:71107
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANJERI, BEING ST 90 OF 2022
Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE
HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANJERI IN ST 90 OF 2022
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
OF INDIA NOTIFYING THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA (GROUND HANDLING SERVICES)
REGULATIONS, 2018.
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION
BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN
AIR INDIA LTD. AND ANR. V. S GUNAHARI AND
ANR. IN WP(C) 277 0F 2003 AND WPC 278 OF
2003 DATED 08.06.2015.
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRLMC NO. 4582 OF 2022
2024:KER:71107
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A COMPLAINT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEING ST
NO.4050/16 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 02-06-2010
(AIC SL NO.3/2010)
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING REF. NO.
RO/CMD/10/793 DATED 22-09-2010 ISSUED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION
BENH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN
AIR INDIA LTD AND ANR V. S. GUNAHARI AND
ANOR IN WPC 277 OF 2003 AND WPC 278 OF 2003
DATED 08-06-2015
