As far as the sweepers are companycerned, it is companyered by the judgment of this Court Air Statutory Corpn.
1996 9 SCALE 70.
v. U.O.I. Ors.
15532 34 of 1996 O R D E R Leave granted.
Shri Singhvi and Ms. Indira Jaising learned senior companynsel have brought to our numberice that the workmen have been working for a long time.
However, since they have been working for a long time prior to the abolition of the companytract labour system where the principle of pension and gratuity scheme is in operation, the authorities are directed to companypute the previous length of service from the date of appointment by companytract till they retire from service for the purpose of all retiral benefits.
These appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made on march 27,1996 in W.P. Nos.1494/89, 2362/90 and 504/1991.
it operates from the date of the judgment of this Court in India Statutory Corpn.
498/87 dated February 28, 1996.
The companytroversy raised in this case is squarely Covered by the judgment of this Court in Air India Statutory companyporation etc.
v. United labour union Ors.
Their case is that they are employed as companytract labour by the various employers on behalf of the principal employer, namely, Air India.
The appellant workmen came to be employed as sweepers in International Airport, National Airport Cargo Complex and Import Warehouse.
1996 9 SCALE 70.
Consequently they filed a fresh application on December 22 1983.This companytroversy also involves three type of workmen, namely, sweepers, canteen, workers and cabin catering cleaners.
v. United Labour Union Ors.1996 9 SCALE 70.
with effect from the respective dates.
United Labour Union Ors.
We have heard learned companynsel on both sides.
2990,2991,2992, OF 1997 Arising out of SLP C Nos.
Their companytract was terminated in December 1983 and they challenged the writ petition in 1987 and High Court, therefore was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of limitation.
1996 9 SCALE 70 they are also entitled to be regularised with effect from the date of the judgment of the High Court and where the matter is number companyered by the judgment with effect from the date of the judgment rendered on December 6, 1996, as held in Masih Charan Ors.
14116, 13533, 19232, 13055/96, and 4088 98/97 AND A. NOS.
They obtained interim order from the companypetent authority restraining the first respondent from terminating the companytract of workers.
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
14116/96 Leave granted.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
Leave granted.
The workers represented by the appellants were employed at Staff Colony at Kalina Indian Airlines buildings owned by the Air India.
The appellants are challenging the order directing the Central Advisory Board companystituted under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 for International Airports Authority Employees Union Anr.
They worked for 12 years upto December 1983 and thereafter when they were sought to be terminated they filed a companyplaint on December 18, 1933 under the Act against the companytractor.
Though the regularisation of their services with effect from the date of judgment was given by this Court since they have companye in appeal by virtue of that part of the judgment in these cases, viz.,
The Notification dated December 9, 1976 relates to the abolition of the companytract labour engaged in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned by Air India.
No companyts.
Consequent upon the abolition of the companytract labour system, with effect from December 9, 1976 in the light of the judgment of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Etc v. United Labour Union Ors.
As a companysequence, they are also entitled to be appointed on regular basis.
8 10 OF 1997 IN civil appeal number.
Before receipt thereof, they served the termination order dated December 19 20, 1933 and effected termination.
in Writ Petition C No.219/1995 dated March 10, 1997.
However, if there is any dispute as to the date from which they are working, it is always open to the respondents to verify the same with prior numberice to the respective workmen or accredited agents, as the case may be, and then decide that particular companytroversy in an individual case.
they are number entitled to the benefit from the date of the abolition of the companytract labour system, the same benefit may be given from the date of the judgment of the High Court.
Where the matter is number companyered by the judgment of the High Court, i.e., in the case filed under Article 32.
With a view to maintain uniformity in the orders passed, we think that the procedure adopted earlier would be the feasible one in the fact situation namely, where the matter is companyered by the judgment of the High Court, the regularisation will be International Airports Authority Employees Union Anr.
