Madras High Court
Airport Authority Of India Bhadra ... vs Airports Authority Of India Ltd on 25 March, 2025
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.02.2025 & 13.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.03.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
W.P.No. 12931 of 2020 and 20261 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos. 15991, 15993, 18785, 25055 of 2020,
2418 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.15467 of 2022
Airport Authority of India Bhadra Employees Union,
Regn. No. 3469/ CNI,
Rep. by its General Secretary,
No.2/1 Kovur Vaithiyanathan Street,
Chintadripet,
Chennai – 600002. …..Petitioner in both Wps
Vs.
1. Airports Authority of India Ltd,
Rep. by its Airport Director,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai 600 027 …….1st Respondent in
2. Airport Director,
Airports Authority of India Ltd,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai 600 027. …….1st Respondent in
3. The Management
Bhadra International India Limited,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
A-9, Airlines Office Gallery, 2nd Floor,
Anna International Terminal,
Chennai Airport,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai – 600 027 …….2nd Respondent in both WPs
4. The Chief Executive Officer,
Airport Authority of India Cargo Logistics &
Allied Services Co.Ltd
(An AAI subsidiary)
Hanger No.1,Belmen Building,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi – 110 003. ...3rd Respondent in both WPs
5. The General Manager,
Airport Authority of India Cargo Logistics
and Allied Services Co.Ltd
(AAICLAS)
Integrated Air Cargo Complex,
Chennai Airport,
Meenambakkam,
Chennai – 600 027. ….4th Respondent in both WPs
6. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)
No.26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006. ….5th Respondent in WP No. 20261/2020
7. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan,
Nungambakkam,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
Chennai – 600 034. ….6th Respondent in WP No. 20261/2020
8. All India Air Transport Services Limited,
Rep. by its Nodal Officer,
Air India Unity Complex,
Pallavaram, Cantonment,
Chennai – 600 043. ….7th Respondent in WP No.20261/2020
Prayer in W.P.No.12931 of 2020
To issue appropriate Writs, orders or Directions and more
particularly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the
Respondents to pay the difference of wages for the month of March
2020, April 2020 and pay full wages from May 2020 onwards to the
members of the petitioner Union, whose names are given in the
Annexure ‘A’ to the Writ Petition, pay the wages in terms of the
settlement dated 07.01.2020 entered under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and further direct the respondents to renew the entry
permit to the 448 employees, whose names are given in the Annexure ‘B’
to the Writ Petition to enable them to enter the Chennai Airport for doing
their regular work and pass such other orders or directions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case,
award costs.
Prayer in W.P.No. 20261 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
To issue appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and more
particularly issue a Writ in nature of Mandamus, forbearing the
Respondent No.1 to 4 and 7 from alerting the service conditions of the
members of the petitioner union whose names are given in the Annexure
to the Writ Petition in any manner including discontinuance of service or
failure to provide employment, including replacing the members of the
Petitioner Union with another set of employees termed to be contract
employees in any manner without getting prior permission from the 6th
Respondent in I.D.No.110 of 2015, which is regarding the non-
consideration of the Charter of Demands placed by the petitioner and
I.D.No.5 of 2018, which is regarding regularization of the services of the
members of the Petitioner Union in the 1st Respondent under Section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and pass such orders or directions as
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.15991 of 2020
To direct the Respondents to provide work and pay wages to the
members of the Petitioner Union every month in terms of the Settlement
under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated
07.01.2020, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.15993 of 2020
To direct the Respondents to pay the balance wages for the month
of March and April 2020 and further direct the Respondents to pay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
wages from May 2020 onwards to the members of the Petitioner Union,
whose names are given in the Annexure ‘A’ to the Writ Miscellaneous
Petition, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.18785 of 2020
To implead the 5th Respondent / Proposed Respondent No.5 as
Party Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.12931 of 2020.
Prayer in W.M.P.No. 25055 of 2020:
To grant interim injunction restraining the respondent no.1 to 4
and 7 from discontinuing the services of the employees or replace the
members of the Petitioner Union with new set of employees or do any act
which will alter the service condition or not renewing the entry pass to
enter the Chennai Airport, which will result in losing employment of the
879 employees whose names are furnished in the annexure to the
petition, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Prayer in W.M.P.No.2418 of 2021
To vacate the injunction granted vide Common Order dated
30.12.2020 in WMP Nos. 25055 of 2020 in WP No. 20261 of 2020
Prayer in W.M.P.No.15467 of 2022
To implead the 8th Respondent viz. “Broadcast Engineering
Consultant India limited, A government of India Enterprise – under
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (A mini Ratna Company),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
Rep. by its Chairman and Manging Director, No.14B, Ring Road, IP
Estate, New Delhi – 110 002 as Party Respondent No.8 in W.P.No.
20261 of 2020.
For Petitioner : M/s.Balan Haridas and R.Kamatchi Sundaresan,
Advocates
(in both WPs)
For Respondent 2
(in W.P.No.12931/2020) : Not served
For Respondent 1,3,& 4
(in W.P.No.12931/2020) : Dr.Father Xavier Arulraj, SC
for Mrs.A.ArulMary
For Respondent 1
(in W.P.No.20261/2020) : M/s. Harshini Jothiraman and
Ramaswamy Meyyappan,Advocates
For Respondent 2
(in 20261/2020) : M/s. Dr.R.Maheswari &
Dr. N.Vijayakumar,Advocates
For Respondenst 3 & 4
(in W.P.No.20261/2020) : M/s. N.P.Vijay Kumar and R.Pradeep,
Advocates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
For Respondent 5
(in W.P.No.20261/2020) : Mr.V.Ashok Kumar, Central Govt.
Standing Counsel
For Respondent 6 : Court
(in W.P.No. 20261/2020)
For Respondent 7
(in W.P.No.20261/2020) : M/s. N.G.R.Prasad and
K.Srinivasamurthy, Advocates
COMMONJUDGMENT
Heard.
2. Though the writ petitions were heard on different dates, they
involve the same petitioner and seek interrelated reliefs. Therefore, they
were consolidated and are being disposed of through this common
judgment.
3. The petitioner in both writ petitions is a registered trade union
representing the interests of the workmen. It has also entered into a
settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the 2nd
respondent on 07.01.2020 before the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chennai, concerning the service conditions of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
the workmen in the 2nd respondent's establishment.
4. In W.P. No. 12931 of 2020, the petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondents to pay the wage differential for March and April 2020 and to
disburse full wages from May 2020 onwards to the members of the
petitioner union, as listed in Annexure A to the writ petition, in
accordance with the settlement dated 07.01.2020. The petitioner prays
for a direction to the respondents to renew the entry permits of 448
employees, as detailed in Annexure B, enabling them to access Chennai
Airport for performing their regular duties.
5. When the writ petition came up for admission on 21.09.2020,
notice was ordered to the respondents. However, the 2nd is yet to be
served, despite a fresh notice being issued on 06.03.2024. Notably, the
same 2nd respondent is also a party in the 2nd writ petition and is
represented by counsel. At the time of admission, this court passed the
following order: -
“Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that a
representation would be submitted to the
concerned authority under the Payment of Wages
Act, 1936, regarding non-payment of wages and
would take necessary steps to implead him as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
party.
Post the matter under the caption ‘Payment of
Wages Act cases’ after four weeks.”
6. In compliance with the Court’s direction, the petitioner union filed
W.M.P. No. 18785 of 2020 seeking to implead the Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chennai, as the 5th respondent in W.P. No.
12931 of 2020. When the matter was heard on 13.02.2024, this Court
ordered notice to the proposed 5th respondent and also permitted service
by private notice. A copy of the private notice sent by counsel, along
with the postal receipt, has been filed. However, there has been no
appearance on behalf of the proposed 5th respondent. In any case, the
same 5th respondent is already a party in the second writ petition, W.P.
No. 20261 of 2020.
7. Upon notice, respondents 1, 3, and 4 have filed a counter affidavit
dated 10.03.2025. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the
employees represented by the petitioner union were engaged by the 2nd
respondent, a private employer, and that any claims regarding unpaid
wages should be pursued before the appropriate forum under the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Regarding their relationship with the
Airport Authority, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit state as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
follows:
“I humbly submit that the 2nd respondent provides
manpower and discharged the work as per the
contract. While the said employees are recruited and
paid by the particular body, the petitioner cannot
suddenly claim that they are the employees of AAI for
the asking of the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner
has no vested right to demand entry passes, where
they have no contract with the Airport Authority or
the 4th respondent. The security protocol cannot be
breached by the petitioner union. The issuance of
entry passed are accountable before the BCAS and
the petitioner union cannot tamper with the protocol.
It is not a fundamental right to be covered under
Art.226.
The averment in para 8 that there are many jobs
available in the import and export Cargo Division, is
not within the domain of this petitioner. There are
also other agencies like M/s.BECIL and M/s.AIASL,
who are providing services in the cargo terminal.
The petitioner has no right to presume and make
unfounded statements. The petitioner, cannot
interfere in the process of selection and deployment
of workers in the Cargo Division and cannot demand
the interference of this Hon’ble Court, in respect of
the same. The 12(3) settlement is not binding on the
2nd respondent. The AAI and AAICLAS are not a
party to the same. The service conditions of the
employees of the 2nd respondent cannot be interfered
with by the other respondents.”
8. In the typed set of documents filed by the Airport Authority,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
a letter dated 12.11.2012 from the 2nd respondent to the Airport
Authority has also been enclosed, which reads as follows:
“Dear Sir,
This is to confirm that all the employees deployed by BIIL
are whole time bonafide employees of the company strictly
conforming to the AAI Ground Handling Regulations. We
do not employ any contractual labour.
As you will agree that the Management has no say in the
naming of any union, AAI Bhadra employees union is not a
recognition union. It has neither submitted to us its
member list nor the office bearers list. They have not only
addressed the letter to Airport Director, AAI, Chennai
Airport but have also categorized AAI as the principal
employer, which is not the case.
Under the circumstances, we request AAI sends its
objection, if required by way of sending legal notice,
pointing out the gross violation in using the name of
Airports Authority of India while forwarding their name to
the Registrar of Trade Union.
The above said Union has till date not communicated with
us but seems to have sent you two letters/demands.
Majority of our employees are non-unionized and they
confirm that they have no affiliation to the above said
Union.”
9. The petitioner union has referred to an industrial dispute, I.D.
No. 5 of 2018, pending before the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai, wherein it seeks the regularization of its members. To
establish that the said industrial dispute has remained pending for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
past seven years, the respondent Airport Authority of India (AAI) has
filed a status report. The latest entry in the report indicates that the
dispute is scheduled for hearing on 30.05.2025.
10. The counsel for AAI also cited the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Ramcharan & Ors., reported in
2023 (1) SCC 463, and specifically referred to the following passages
from paragraphs4.1 to 4.3:
“4.1……….There is no provision under Section 10 of the
CLRA Act that the workers/employees employed by the
contractor automatically become the employees of the
appellant and/or the employees of the contractor shall be
entitled for automatic absorption and/or they become the
employees of the principal employer. It is to be noted that
even the direct control and supervision of the contesting
respondents was always with the contractor.
4.2 Under the contract and even under the provisions of
the CLRA, a duty was cast upon the appellant to pay all
statutory dues, including salary of the workmen, payment
of PF contribution, and in case of non- payment of the
same by the contractor, after making such payment, the
same can be deducted from the contractor’s bill.
Therefore, merely because sometimes the payment of
salary was made and/or PF contribution was paid by the
appellant, which was due to non-payment of the same by
the contractor, the contesting respondents shall not
automatically become the employees of the principal
employer – appellant herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
4.3 Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, in the
absence of a notification under Section 10 of the CLRA
Act unless there are allegations or findings with regard
to a contract being sham, private respondents herein,
who are as such the workmen/employee of the contractor,
cannot be held to be employees of the appellant and not
of the contractor.”
11. Since the petitioner in this writ petition seeks payment of
unpaid wages from their employer, this Court, being mindful of the
provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, directed the petitioner
union to implead the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai,
as a respondent. He is the notified authority under Section 15 of the Act,
empowered to adjudicate claims related to deductions from wages or
delays in wage payments, including all incidental matters. Under Section
15(2), a registered trade union is also entitled to represent its members in
such claims. The authority also has the power to award compensation in
cases of delayed payments. He has to decide the application within 3
months from the date of registration of the claim.
12. When an efficacious remedy is available under the provisions
of the Act, it is unclear why the petitioner union has chosen to invoke the
writ jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore, even if the workmen are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
treated as contract labour, as contended by the respondent AAI, they are
entitled to claim wages from the principal employer under Section 21(4)
of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA).
In Indian Airlines v. Central Government Labour Court, New Delhi &
Ors., reported in 1987 (2) LLJ 512, the Delhi High Court held that
workmen can also approach the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act for claiming unpaid wages. In that judgment,
the Court directed as follows:
“….Thus, the workmen employed by the contractor are
entitled to recover their wages and their conditions of
service in the same manner as workers employed by the
principal employer under the appropriate industrial and
labour laws. This means that if the workers directly
employed by the petitioner can claim the wages due to
them by moving an application under S. 33C(2) of the
Act, the workers employed by the contractors are also
entitled to claim the wages due to them by moving an
application under S. 33C(2) of the Act.”
13. Therefore, the petitioner union has the option to seek redress
either before the Payment of Wages Authority under Section 15 of the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or before the jurisdictional Labour Court
under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of
unpaid wages and certainly not approach this court for any direction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
since appropriate alternative efficacious remedy is available to the
workmen. With these observations, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
14. During the pendency of the first writ petition, the petitioner
filed a second writ petition, W.P. No. 20261 of 2020. In this petition,
they seek an order restraining respondents R1, R4, and R7 from altering
the service conditions of the union members listed in the annexure to the
affidavit, comprising 879 names. They further pray for an injunction
against discontinuing their services, failing to provide employment, or
replacing them with fresh employees without obtaining prior permission
from the sixth respondent, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
(CGIT), in I.D. No. 110 of 2015 (concerning the union’s charter of
demands) and I.D. No. 5 of 2018 (regarding the regularization of union
members' services) under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
When the writ petition came up for admission on 30.12.2020, this Court
found a prima facie case for granting interim relief. Accordingly,
respondents R1 to R4 were restrained from discontinuing the services of
the petitioner union’s members, as listed in the annexure, for a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
two weeks. Further, an interim stay was granted on the communication
dated 22.12.2020 concerning Chennai and Kolkata Airports. The
respondents were further directed to facilitate the issuance of security
passes or fulfill any other necessary requirements to enable the second
respondent, Bhadra International Pvt. Ltd., to continue providing cargo
and ground handling services.
15. When the writ petition was taken up on 08.01.2021, the interim
stay was extended until 20.01.2021. Subsequently, on 20.01.2021, it was
further extended until 04.02.2021. On 04.02.2021, the stay was
continued until 12.02.2021, and on 24.02.2021, it was extended until
05.03.2021. Thereafter, on 04.03.2021, the interim order was further
extended until 16.03.2021. On 17.03.2021, the stay was once again
extended for two more weeks. Subsequently, on 01.04.2021, it was
extended until 07.04.2021, and on 23.04.2021, it was continued until
02.06.2021. Finally, on 23.07.2021, the interim stay was extended until
25.08.2021.
16. Against the interim order granted on 30.12.2020, the first
respondent, Airport Authority, filed a miscellaneous petition in W.M.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
No. 2418 of 2021, seeking to vacate the interim order, which remains
pending. The first respondent contends that, with respect to Chennai
Airport, the contract for ground handling services has been awarded to
M/s. Las Ground Force Pvt. Ltd., located at 301, The Glacis Tower,
Above IndusInd Bank, Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052, for
a period of ten years, as per the order dated 12.01.2021. Similarly, for
Kolkata Airport, the first respondent, by order dated 11.01.2021,
awarded the ground handling services to M/s. Indo Thai Airport
Management Services Pvt. Ltd., located at 5, JBS Halden Avenue, Silver
Arcade, 2nd Floor, Room No. 52, Kolkata – 700105.
17. Notwithstanding the non-extension of the stay order, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in K.
Jayaraman v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 (1) Writ LR 334,
and contended that the interim stay would continue to remain in force
and that the provisions of Article 226(3) would not be applicable.
18. It is pertinent to note that, alongside the writ petition filed by
the petitioner union, the second respondent contractor also filed W.P. No.
20314 of 2020, seeking the following relief:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1 st respondent
relating to the impugned communications bearing No.AV-
24011/8/2017-AAI-MOCA-Part (1) dated 22.12.2020
issued by Respondent No.1 and quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents to renew the Airport
Entry Passes of the ground handling staff of the petitioner
at Chennai and Kolkata Airports at least until 30.06.2021
or till such time that the duly selected ground handling
agencies appointed by the respondents operationally take
over for Chennai and Kolkata Airports pursuant to open
tender process in terms of Regulation 3(4) of the Ground
Handling Regulations, 2018, whichever is later”
19. After multiple extensions of interim orders, the writ petition
filed by the second respondent was taken up for final disposal on
16.06.2021 and was dismissed by an order of the same date. The Court
held that the license granted to the 2nd respondent was determinable, and
in paragraph 28, it was observed as follows:
“28. A reading of the License Agreement makes it very
clear that it is determinable one. Once it is determined in
accordance with the contractual terms, it is always open to
the parties to the Agreement to challenge the same as per
the terms and conditions provided in the Agreement. The
contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner that it is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution cannot be accepted for the reason that the
petitioner's License Agreement by itself lapsed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
22.09.2020. Secondly, he has not chosen to challenge the
termination notice given by the respondents as early as on
12.02.2018 which was periodically extended after
termination of the License in terms of 2017 Regulations as
well as 2018 Regulations. It was extended by
communication dated 19.06.2018, 04.06.2019, 14.10.2019
and 17.03.2020. The petitioner could have chosen to
challenge the termination then and there. Having failed to
challenge the termination and having failed to submit his
bid to participate in the tender process, the petitioner
cannot complain of violation of equality. The petitioner at
his option has not chosen to participate in the tender
process and therefore, he cannot claim any equal
treatment.”
20. Following the dismissal of W.P. No. 20314 of 2020, filed by
the 2nd respondent, the petitioner union filed W.M.P. No. 15467 of
2022, seeking to implead M/s. Broadcast Engineering Consultants India
Limited, a Government of India enterprise under the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting (a Mini Ratna company), represented by
its Chairman and Managing Director, located at No. 14B, Ring Road, IP
Estate, New Delhi – 110 002, as the 8th respondent. The petitioner union
alleged that the 1st respondent had inducted the 8th respondent for
manpower supply and that employees were coerced either to accept their
full and final settlement from the erstwhile second respondent or to join
the 7th respondent. It was further contended that most employees had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
been discontinued without obtaining prior permission from the CGIT,
where two industrial disputes were pending. It was also stated that 90
employees had not been provided employment since March 2020. The
application is yet to be ordered.
21. On behalf of the 7th respondent, a counter affidavit dated
Nil, January 2021, was filed, denying the allegations made by the
petitioner union. It was stated that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
regular flight operations were suspended, and Air India was operating
only under the Vande Bharat Mission, for which ground handling
services were exclusively carried out by the 7th respondent. Foreign
carriers were not permitted to operate normal passenger flights, and only
limited services were allowed. The 7th respondent further stated that it
was fully equipped with both manpower and equipment to meet the
requirements of carriers operating at Indian airports and that it had a
presence in all airports across the country. It was also stated that the 2nd
respondent was not engaged in ground handling operations or other
dependent activities. In response, the petitioner union filed a reply
affidavit dated 19.01.2021, refuting these claims.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
22. This brings us to the issue of the two pending industrial disputes
raised by the petitioner union. In the first dispute, I.D. No. 110 of 2015,
pending before the 6th respondent, CGIT, the reference made by the
Central Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
by order dated 13.07.2015 was as follows:
“No.L-11011/9/2015 (IR(M)): Whereas the Central
Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute
exists between the employers in relation to the management
of Airport Authority of India, and their workmen in respect
of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed;
And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable
to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication
to the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai. The said Tribunal shall give its award within a
period of three months.
The Schedule
“Whether the action of the management of Bhadra
International (India) Pvt.Ltd., Chennai regarding not
considering the charter of demands placed by the petitioner
union for implementation is justifiable or not? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?”
23. In the second industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union,
which was registered as I.D. No. 5 of 2018 and is pending before the 6th
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
respondent, CGIT, the reference made by the Central Government under
Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act by order dated 30.01.2018
was as follows:
“No.L-11011/8/2017 (IR(M)): Whereas the Central
Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute
exists between the employers in relation to the management
of M/s Airport Authority of India, and their workmen in
respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto
annexed;
And whereas the Central Government considers it desirable
to refer the said dispute for adjudication;
Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication
to the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai. The said Tribunal shall give its award within a
period of three months.
The Schedule
“Whether the demand of the Union (Airport Authority of
India Bhadra Employees’ Union (AITUC) for regularization
of the 794 workmen (as per Annexure – A) by Airports
Authority of India is justified? If not, to what relief are the
workmen entitled to?”
24. In both disputes, the petitioner union has filed its claim statements.
In I.D. No. 110 of 2015, the claim is solely against the 2nd respondent,
and the 1st respondent has not been made a party, nor has any relief been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
sought against it. However, in I.D. No. 5 of 2018, the petitioner union has
included both the 1st and 2nd respondents as parties in its claim
statement. It is undisputed that both disputes remain pending.
25.If there is any infraction of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
for which relief has been sought in this writ petition, the petitioner union
has an available remedy under Section 33A of the Act by filing a
complaint before the 6th respondent, CGIT, and seeking appropriate
relief. At present, the petitioner union alleges that the 1st respondent, by
entering into a new contract, is attempting to alter the service conditions,
including the employment of its members, thereby attracting the
provisions of Section 33.
26. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma &
Ors., reported in 1994 (6) SCC 522, wherein a Constitution Bench held
that any infraction of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act renders
the action void ab initio, emphasizing that the provisions of Section 33
are mandatory in nature. Therefore, the petitioner union has the option to
seek appropriate relief before the 6th respondent, CGIT, or pursue any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
other legal recourse available for the alleged violation of Section 33.
27. In the common counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, a
similar contention has been raised, in addition to arguments on the merits
of the case. In any event, when a statutory remedy is available for any
violation under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court need
not issue a direction to the employer to comply with the provision in
anticipation of a potential infraction. A writ of mandamus cannot be
issued merely to advise the employer to act lawfully. Furthermore,
considering that the petitioner union initially aligned itself with the 2nd
respondent regarding the ground handling license and that their writ
petitions were subsequently dismissed, it would be inappropriate to
sustain the present writ petition based on a speculative grievance.
28. In the result, both W.P. No. 12931 of 2020 and W.P. No. 20261 of
2020 are dismissed with the observations rendered above. No costs.
Consequently, all pending miscellaneous petitions, namely W.M.P. Nos.
15991 of 2020, 15993 of 2020, 18785 of 2020, 25055 of 2020, 2418 of
2021, and 15467 of 2022, are also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
25.03.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)
No.26, Haddows Road,
Shastri Bhavan,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
W.P. Nos.12931 & 20261 of 2020
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
W.P.No. 12931 of 2020 and 20261 of
2020 and
W.M.P.Nos. 15991, 15993,
18785, 25055 of 2020,
2418 of 2021 and
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/03/2025 07:25:07 pm )
