The Chairman And Managing ... vs Md.Irfani S/O.Md.Khaleel
2021 Latest Caselaw 3305 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


WRIT APPEAL Nos.547, 874, 875, 876, 882, 891 & 984 of 2013

COMMON JUDGMENT:         (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     Learned counsel for the appellants is fair enough in

stating before this Court that other writ appeals arising out of

the same common order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.20102 of 2011 and batch

has been disposed of by a common judgment dated

31.08.2015 passed in W.A.No.878, 879, 888, 892, 893, 894 &

983 of 2013 and 131, 132, 152 & 847 of 2015. The order

passed by the Division Bench is reproduced as under:

           "All these Writ Appeals are preferred by the Air India
     Limited acting through its Managing Director or the
     Regional Director, as the case may be.
             A batch of Writ Petitions has been heard and
     disposed of by a very brief order by the learned Single
     Judge on 07.03.2013. The grievance of the petitioners,
     which was brought out in paragraph 2 of the order, sets out
     that the writ petitioners are engaged to work as Typists,
     Helpers, Casual Labour, Telephone Operators, Safaiwalas,
     etcetera in various sections of the Air India Limited at
     Begumpet Air Port. It is commonly urged that all of them
     have been engaged in service from the year 1999 onwards
     and they have been continuously rendering services to the
     Air India. It is also urged that pursuant to the orders
     passed by this Court, as the work requirement demanded,
     the services of the writ petitioners were continued without
     any artificial breaks which are being deployed earlier. It is
     also the grievance of the writ petitioners that they have
     already approached the Industrial Tribunal seeking
     regularization of their services. In view of the pendency of
     the Industrial Disputes so raised, the learned Single Judge
     directed the appellants herein to engage the services of the
     petitioners continuously without affecting any artificial
     breaks, but however, the learned Judge has carefully added
     the following rider thereafter:
                               2



      " ......... so long as it is felt necessary for engaging
      their services, without resorting to engaging the
      services of freshers."
       In our view, these Writ Appeals are, in fact,
unnecessary to be adjudicated upon. Ms. Uma, learned
Standing Counsel for the Air India Limited would submit
that pursuant to the policy decision of the Union of India to
establish an International Air Port at Shamshabad, by
entering into private public partnership agreement, the
operations at Begumpet have become completely restricted.
The Air Port is not used as a civilian Air Port any further.
All operations are carried out from the Air Port at
Shamshabad. Consequently, the services, which are
required to be performed at Begumpet, have virtually come
to a stand still. This apart, for running and maintaining the
hangar to keep the fleet in airworthy condition, the Air
India is carrying its technical operations at Begumpet. All
commercial and passenger services of Air India are carried
out only from the Air Port at Shamshabad. Therefore, urges
Ms. Uma that there was no necessity to continue in service
the respective petitioners any further.
        It is true that after the Air Port at Shamshabad has
been operationalized to both passenger and commercial
freight, the operations at Begumpet Air Port have been
completely restricted. The infrastructure at Begumpet Air
Port is utilized for training facilities, both civilian and
defence. It is also true that the Air Port at Begumpet is still
utilized to allow flights ferrying VVIPs. to land and take-off,
but such operations are far and few in between. In these set
of circumstances, particularly in view of the changed
scenario, the safety valve provided by the learned Single
Judge, in our opinion, will insulate the claim of the
appellants herein. The learned Single Judge has already
granted the necessary leave to engage the services of the
writ petitioners, on casual basis, till such time the quantum
of work undertaken by the Air India requires any such
engagement. If there is no requirement of man-power, in
view of the operations at Shamshabad Air Port being
handled by a private operator completely, freedom and
liberty is already preserved by the learned Single Judge not
to engage the casual employees, but however, the learned
Judge has also taken care to ensure that as and when the
services of casual employees, such as that of the writ
petitioners, are needed, the Air India cannot engage
someone afresh. They will have to necessarily offer to the
respective writ petitioners the first opportunity to be so
engaged. Only in the event the respective writ petitioners
decline to accept the offer of engagement, on casual basis,
the Air India can take resort to engage some one afresh
other than the writ petitioners.
      We therefore, do not see any necessity or reason to
modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is
                                     3



        for the Air India to make a careful assessment of its man-
        power requirement and on that basis, it must undertake
        the necessary engagement of human resources.
               With this, all the Writ Appeals stand disposed of,
        after hearing Sri Ugra Narasimha, Sri Bathi Reddy and Sri
        A. Nagendra Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
        the respondents. No costs.

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of."

In the light of the aforesaid order, the present writ

appeals also deserve to be disposed of and accordingly

disposed of. The judgment delivered in the aforesaid cases

shall be applicable as mutatis mutandis in the present cases

also.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ

appeals shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

09.11.2021 ES