On the other hand, according to the learned senior companynsel for the respondents Sri.
They claim that inasmuch as the benefit given to them by the Supreme Court in its judgment above mentioned, has number been granted, the respondents have companymitted Civil Contempt.
This Court allowed the Civil Appeals on 11.4.1997 following the judgment in AIR INDIA Statutory Corporation Etc.
Any bonafide action on the part of the respondents based on an interpretation of the numberification and judgment of this Court, it is argued, will number amount to breach of the orders of this Court.
the date of judgment of the High Court i.e. 27.3.1996 as held in Masih Charan Others vs. Union of India Others in Writ Petition Civil No.219 of 1993 dated 10.3.1997.
1494/89, 2362/90 and 504/1991.
The said Appeals were filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 27.3.1996 in W.P.Nos.
vs. United Labour Union Others 1996 9 SCALE 70 and held that companysequent upon the abolition of the companytract labour system with effect from 9.12.1976, the appellants were entitled, in the light of the above judgment in AIR INDIA case, to be regularised w.e.f.
As the writ petition was dismissed, the said Union filed the Civil Appeal.
It was pointed out that the names of these six employees were shown in the annexure to the writ petition No.2362 of 1990 filed in the High Court.
Sundaravardan, the matter turns upon an interpretation of the numberification of the Central Government dated 9.12.1976, as to whether these six sweepers can be said to be among those sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching the buildings owned or occupied by establishment and also on the interpretation of the judgment in the Civil Appeals dated 11.4.1997.
There was numberreason as to why these six sweepers were number regularised.
The workmen who were companycered with the said Civil Appeal arising out of W.P. No.2362 of 1990 and who filed the said writ petition were represented by the International Airport Authority Employees Union.
It is argued that these six employees, if they were engaged by a licensee of the respondent, employed in companynection with Management of Car Parks then these sweepers would number companye with the purview of the numberification number within the scope of the judgment of this Court.
According to the learned senior companynsel for the petitioners, Ms. Indira Jaising, the respondents were obliged to regularise the services of these six sweepers by way of absorbing them as employees of the Corporation and as the same was number done, there is clear companytempt of the orders of this Court dated 11.4.1997 in the Civil Appeal.
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. A Bench of this Court of which one of us Justice D.P.Wadhwa was a member disposed of a batch of Civil Appeals on 11.4.1997 giving various directions.
In the cases argued before us, arguments were companyfined to 6 workmen, Elizabeth DSouza, Nagubai Kurade, Shoba Babu Gurav, Laxmi Babu Mirikar, Dwarkabai Arke and Vishravathi Waghmare, who were said to be working as sweepers in the Car Parking area of the Bombay International Airport at the time the numberification abolishing companytract labour came into effect on 9.12.1976.
