Pending finalization of a companytract with the said society, in terms of the memo filed in WP No.11683/1985, IAAI started engaging some of the workers of Airfreight as casual labour on day to day basis depending on the actual requirements.
In pursuance of it, the government reconsidered the matter and referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, by order dated 14.10.1991 Whether the action of the Management of International Airport Authority of India, Madras is justified in number absorbing the workers members of Airport International Cooperative Service Society, their Contractor.
Third Round IAAI agreed to the request of the society to increase the monthly payment to Rs.50,000 and a more detailed agreement was executed on 14.7.1986 between IAAI and society under which the society agreed to provide manpower loaders cum packers for unloading, shifting, stacking, marking unpacking, packing, stitching, strapping, companynting of cargo and other miscellaneous porterage jobs at Madras Airport, round the clock, in three shifts.
When the said term was companying to an end, the International Air Cargo Workers Union first respondent and the society filed Writ Petition No.9110 of 1989 seeking service security to the 89 workers and treat them on par with regular employees of IAAI by giving them wages benefits/ privileges of regular workmen.
W 4 is a Circular dated 18.2.1986 of IAAI numberifying that wages of 82 loaders mentioned therein had been drawn from 1.1.1986 to 31.1.1986 and directed the said daily wage labourers to receive their wages immediately.
The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 26.3.1991 on the ground that the central government companyld number pre judge the issue and while companysidering whether a dispute should be referred under section 10 of ID Act, the government is number supposed to delve into merits of the case and indulge in any adjudicatory process.
If the Central Government issues a numberification under section 10 under the CLRA Act, prohibiting companytract labour in regard to loading, unloading and packing in the cargo companyplex all those who had worked as companytract labour under the companytract between the society and the IAAI up to the numbers specified in the companytract shall be absorbed in the IAAI as was directed by this Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union 1997 9 SCC 377.
The Division Bench was of the view that the findings recorded by the tribunal were unexceptionable.
Seventh current Round The reference made by the central government which was registered as ID No.65 of 1991 was decided by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in favour of the workers by award dated 23.12.1994.
Any attempt by IAAI to appoint the workmen as companytract labour is illegal and would amount to an unfair labour practice.
The said petition was dismissed on 18.12.1989 reserving liberty to raise the issues and demands in the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ID Act for short , as the workers had already raised an industrial dispute demanding direct employment and the companyciliation had ended in a failure on 26.9.1989.
In view of the appeal made by the said workers, IAAI unilaterally came forward with a scheme to mitigate their hardship, and filed the following memo before the High Court The authority IAAI will companysider mitigating the hardship of the ex loaders and packers of M s Air Freight claimed to be caused on account of its take over of cargo handling function by accommodating them as far as possible except by way of regular absorption in the services of IAAI till such time the authority has made its own regular arrangements, on companytract basis through a Co operative Society formed on specified terms and companyditions and period as per the policy of IAAI framed from time to time.
28.1 We will first examine whether there was any material at all to hold that the wages were being directly paid by IAAI to the companytract labour.
The Union companyld, therefore, avail of the remedy available under the said Act The said companymunication dated 7.12.1989 was challenged in W.P. No.10719 of 1990.
If number, to what relief the companycerned workmen are entitled ?
Therefore, the companytracts for supply of companytract labour were paper companytracts and a camouflage to deny benefits of labour laws to the members of first respondent Union.
In view of it, when W.P. No.5164 of 1986 came up on 2.7.1986, the learned companynsel submitted that the matter was settled out of companyrt and accordingly the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
The last finding is that there were three indicators to show that companytract labour for loading unloading were direct employees of IAAI direct payment of wages, direct penal action by IAAI against the companytract labour, and direct companytrol and supervision of companytract labour by IAAI.
The writ appeal WA No.800 of 1994 challenging the said order was also dismissed on 27.6.1994.
This finding is also based on numberevidence.
28.2 The Tribunal held that IAAI was taking penal and disciplinary action by suspending and punishing the companytract labour and that was proof of direct employment.
6126 of 1995 and restoring the award dated 23.12.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in ID NO.65 of 1991.
This is number a companymunication addressed to the companytract labour but to the society informing the society that Ram Chander may be permitted to work in view of his assurance to behalf properly.
The question of abolition of companytract labour system is dealt with under CLRA Act which lays down the criteria and the procedure for abolition of this system.
Fourth Round The companyciliation officer submitted a Failure Report dated 3.10.1989, in regard to the companyciliation Government of India however refused to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that workmen in dispute were employed by the society and number by IAAI.
The agreement companyfirmed that the settlement had been arrived at without any pressure from either side, in mutual interest, for the smooth operation of the cargo companyplex.
M 21 is a letter dated 20/22.2.1991 from IAAI to the society for supply of companytract labour.
The Division Bench also held that the Union having companysciously resorted to the remedy available under industrial law, and number having demurred against the dismissal of WP No.9110/1989 cannot re agitate the same question in a writ petition challenging the tender numberice.
The order of refusal also stated Therefore the dispute is number maintainable against the IAAI management under the ID Act indirectly.
Reliance was placed on Ex.
W10, M 15 to M 17, M 21, M 23 as also M2, 24 to 31 and 34 to 40 to prove that IAAI was directly taking action against the companytract labour.
Till such a decision was taken, the workers companycerned shall be companytinued numberwithstanding the interruption in their employment as companytract labourers from 1994 to the date of that order 15.12.1997 , as companytract labour on the terms and companyditions that were in force between IAAI and the society prior to 1994 subject to the companydition that the wages payable to such workers shall number be less than what was paid to companytract labour who were engaged between 1994 and 1997 and the said workers shall be engaged from January, 1998, their engagement being subject to good behaviour, companyduct, discipline and efficient performance.
The said memo of IAAI requiring the workers to form a society was a ploy adopted by IAAI to defeat the legitimate claim of the workers to permanent status to which they were entitled as they had worked for 5 to 14 years previously under Airfreight and thereafter under the IAAI who was the principal employer and after the termination of the handling agency of Airfreight, their workers became the direct employees of IAAI.
The High Court recorded the memo filed by IAAI and dismissed the writ petition on 12.12.1985, in view of the agreement expressed by the learned companynsel for Airfreight Workers Union.
The workers are number entitled to put forth a companytention companytrary to the proposal scheme of IAAI recorded by the High Court in the order dated 12.12.1985 passed in W.P. No.11683 of 1985.
None of them relates to imposition of punishment by IAAI as employer against any employee.
In the said award the tribunal recorded the following findings The memo filed by IAAI in W.P. No.11683 of 1985 which was agreed to by the workers union , resulting in dismissal of W.P. No.11683/1985 filed by the workers union, amounted to a settlement which was number valid, as IAAI was in a dominant position to dictate terms and companypel the workers union to enter into the settlement to circumvent the provisions of law and deprive the legitimate right of the workmen to permanent status.
M 23 is a letter dated 14.5.1991 from IAAI to the society regarding duty roster.
The case has a chequered history and has companye up after several rounds of litigations.
In that petition, the first respondent Union inter alia companytended that the IAAI had numbervalid registration of its establishment under section 7 of the CLRA Act and therefore the companytract labour namely the workers employed by the society should be treated directly employed by IAAI.
Thus they became the direct employees of IAAI from November 1985.
W 6 is a pay slip of one Aseem Das, Cargo Loader for June, 1990 who was working in the Calcutta Airport.
Once the workers became its employees, IAAI companyld number change their status from direct workers to indirect workers.
In the circumstances, the workers loaders and packers employed by Airfreight in companynection with the ground handling work, who were likely to be retrenched discharged, made an appeal to IAAI to provide them employment.
The Tribunal directed IAAI to absorb the members of the society whose names were stated in the annexures to the claim statement, excluding only those who died or left service , with effect from the date of the award.
It was further agreed as follows i that the said arrangement would be in force for a period of six months ii that if any additional loaders cum packers were required by IAAI, the society will provide them at the rate of Rs.15 per manshift iii that IAAI would sympathetically companysider the societys request for increasing the monthly payment to Rs.50,000 iv that the agreement would be implemented within 10 days and v that W.P. No.5164 of 1986 would be withdrawn voluntarily.
Second Round The Airfreight Workers Union and the society filed Writ Petition No.5164 of 1986 seeking a direction to IAAI to hand over the ground handling work at the Madras Airport Cargo Complex to the society, on terms to be mutually agreed or in the alternative absorb the ex employees of Airfreight on its permanent rolls and till then maintain status quo.
The said award was challenged by IAAI in W.P. No.6126/1995.
The said decision is under challenge in this appeal.
None of them is relevant.
Fifth Round In the meanwhile IAAI issued a tender numberice dated 19.11.1990 inviting tenders for the cargo handling work at the Air Cargo Complex.
In the year 1985 IAAI decided to take over the ground handling work and entrust it to a new licencee by inviting companypetitive tenders.
It was agreed that the said amount had been determined by assuming the minimum wage as Rs.20 per day and if there was any statutory increase beyond Rs.20/ , such excess should be borne by IAAI.
The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the union by filing a writ appeal WA No.1265/1990 which was dismissed by judgment dated 3.1.1991.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, an agreement was entered on 1.7.1986 under which the society agreed to provide 70 loaders cum packers at the Madras Air Cargo Complex on a companysolidated monthly payment of Rs.45,870.
The Union has demanded abolition of companytract labour system in the loading unloading operations etc.
The first respondent Union challenged the said order of learned Single Judge before a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.544/1998.
The termination of the handling companytract of Airfreight did number require IAAI or the new licencee of IAAI to take over the workers employed by Airfreight.
These letters give the particulars of the irregularities companymitted and inform the society number to send them to work pending investigation.
Under an agreement dated 30.1.1978, it granted a licence to a private companypany known as M s. Airfreight Private Ltd. referred to as Airfreight to be its ground handling agent in respect of export, import and transshipment cargo companysignments.
The companytract labour arrangement admittedly came into existence only from 1.7.1986.
Under the said agreement, Airfreight was to receive payment from the owners of the cargo for the work done, had to engage the services of required number of workers for handling the cargo and be responsible for payment of wages to the workers.
These two documents were produced only to show that the IAAI had employed some persons as direct labour in its cargo department in Calcutta and Bombay Airports and had numberhing to do with the workers who were working at Madras.
Even when the workmen were working as companytract labour through the society, IAAI was exercising direct supervision and companytrol over them, directly paying wages to them and taking disciplinary action against them and all these showed that they were companysidered and dealt with as direct employees of IAAI and the agreement between IAAI and the society was sham and numberinal.
The High Court, therefore, directed the government to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision in regard to the request for reference.
The society entered into a fresh agreement dated 11.12.1987 agreeing to provide loaders cum packers at the Madras airport companyplex, for a period of two years from 1.9.1987.
IAAI had numberprivity of companytract, obligation or responsibility towards the workers employed by the Airfreight.
This is a finding based on absolutely numberevidence and shockingly perverse and is liable to be rejected accordingly.
IAAI and Airfreight were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2 in the said writ petition.
It established a cargo companyplex at Madras in the year 1978.
The legal background and questions for decision When the learned Single Judge companysidered the matter, the legal position was governed by the decision in Gujarat Electricity Board vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha 1995 5 SCC 27, partly modified by Air India Satutory Corporation vs. United Labour Union 1997 9 SCC 377.
Sixth Round Again when IAAI invited fresh tenders, the first respondent Union filed W.P. No.273 of 1994 seeking a direction to IAAI number to invite tenders for loading unloading operations or take any other action which will have the effect of discharging the workers engaged in the loading and unloading operations.
First Round The Airfreight Workers Union also filed Writ Petition No.11683/1985 in the Madras High Court, seeking a direction to IAAI to employ all those workers who had been employed by Airfreight in companynection with the ground handling work at the Madras Airport cargo companyplex and number to recruit anyone from outside.
W 10 is a letter dated 7.3.1990 from IAAI to the society, stating that one Ram Chander, loader cum packer had given an assurance to work in a disciplined manner and therefore it was decided to allow him to work.
The Division Bench was of the view that when the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the companytract labour were under the direct supervision and companytrol of IAAI, that they were paid salary directly by IAAI, that they were subjected to suspension and other disciplinary companytrol by IAAI, that the companytract between IAAI and the society was sham and numberinal, the companysequential finding that they were the direct employees of IAAI ought number to have been disturbed by the learned Single Judge.
Nevertheless having regard to the facts of the case, in particular IAAI being a public sector undertaking was required to be a model employer, issued the following directions The Central Government and the Advisory Board companystituted under the CLRA Act should companysider whether deployment of companytract labour in regard to packing, loading and unloading in IAAIs Madras Cargo Complex should be abolished and take appropriate decision thereon.
The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 6.12.1990 holding that in the absence of a numberification under section 10 of the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment of companytract labour in regard to the process of cargo handling, and in the absence of any material to show that the workers were deemed to be workmen of IAAI, the appropriate remedy was to agitate the matter before the companycerned labour authority instead of filing a writ petition.
The workers of Airfreight took steps to form a companyoperative society which was registered under the name and style of Airport Industrial Co operative Service Society Ltd., society for short on 28.11.1985.
W 3 dated 18.4.1988 is a cash receipt for payment of ex gratia amount paid to cargo loaders for the period 22.3.1986 to 9.5.1986 and 17.5.1986 to 23.5.1986.
M 15 to M 17 are 3 letters dated 9.3.1987, 16.6.1988 and 11.6.1990 addressed by IAAI to the society regarding the allotment of companytract labour and their identification.
This again is of numberrelevance as it related to the period prior to the companytract labour agreement when the workers were working as casual daily wage employees directly under the IAAI.
Thus from 1.11.1985, Airfreight ceased to be the ground handling agent of IAAI at Madras Airport.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court by its judgment dated 12.11.2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restored the award of the Tribunal.
Therefore, by letter dated 19.9.1985 IAAI informed Airfreight that the ground handling agency operations should be handed over to its officers on 31.10.1985.
After the termination of the handling agency in favour of Airfreight, its employees were directly engaged by IAAI and received salary from IAAI.
M24 is a letter dated 2.12.1987 from IAAI to the society informing that there is numberimprovement in the attendance of the companytract labour, and requesting the society to take necessary action to improve their attendance.
The International Airport Authority of India IAAI for short , the appellant herein, was established under the International Airports Authority Act, 1971.
Both these documents relate to the period prior to 31.10.1985 when the workers were the permanent employees of Airfreight, and had absolutely numberconnection with IAAI.
A learned Single Judge of Madras High Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 15.12.1997 and set aside the award of the Tribunal.
minimum being Rs.12 lacs, maximum being Rs.43.50 lacs plus an agreed percentage of the revenue over and above 60 lacs .
The Division Bench numbered that IAAI had registered its establishment under section 7 of the CLRA Act on 23.3.1990 and the tender numberice was issued only thereafter on 19.11.1990.
M25 to 31 and 34 to 40 are letters companyplaining about pilferage and other irregularities companymitted by the companytract labour numbericed by security personnel.
W 5 is the pay slip of one S.C. Yadav for May, 1990 who was working in the Bombay Airport and Ex.
The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.6.1994 on the ground that the issue was pending adjudication by Industrial Tribunal and writ petitions for similar relief had been rejected earlier.
The said tender numberice was challenged by the first respondent Union in W.P. No.18560 of 1990.
On the basis of these documents, the Tribunal has held that payments were being directly made to workers when they were companytract labours.
The agreement reiterated that the total number of loaders cum packers to be made available by the society on regular basis will be 70 that the additional loaders cum packers will be made available on a further payment of Rs.15 per manshift and that the agreement would be in force between 10.7.1986 to 19.1.1987.
By the time the Division Bench decided the writ appeal, the decision of the Constitution Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd., vs. National Union Waterfront Workers 2001 7 SCC 1 for short SAIL had been rendered, but on account of the short gap between the two dates, the Division Bench did number numberice the decision in SAIL.
The lump sum payment by IAAI was revised as Rs.60,000 per month for providing 70 loaders and three supervisors.
Not even a single document was produced to show that any numberice of suspension or show cause numberice for disciplinary action or order imposing punishment was passed by IAAI in regard to any of the companytract labour.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.544/1998 reversing the order dated 15.12.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
It was also required to pay a licence fee to IAAI, linked to the total revenue realized by it.
