International Airports Authority Employees Union vs International Airports Authority of India & others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(Bom) 322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.G. Palshikar S.J. Vazifdar, JJ.
International Airports Authority Employees Union .... Petitioner.
Versus
International Airports Authority of India others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 1623, 2918/1991 with W.P. No. 735 of 1992 with W.P. No. 286 of 1993 with W.P. No. 402/1996 along with Notice of Motion No. 306/1996 W.P. No. 1777/1996 with W.P. Nos. 292, 293, 306, 404, 424, 1226, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399 1538/1997 with W.P. Nos. 121, 877, 903, 1159, 1206, 1854, 2470 2508/1998 with W.P. Nos. 105, 405, 412, 507, 544, 1026, 1064, 1864, 2209, 2269/1999 along with Notice of Motion No. 14 of 2001 with W.P. No. 2806 2439/1999, decided on 30-10-2001/1-4-2002.
Advocates appeared :
K.K. Singhvi, Sr.A. with S.K. Singhvi, in W.P. Nos. 1623, 2918/1991, 735/1992 286/1993, for petitioners.
Rafiq A. Dada, Sr.A. with S.K. Talsania with C.U. Singh, i/b. Bhaishankar Kanga Girdharlal Co., in W.P. No. 1623/1991, for respondent No. 1.
Lata Desai, in W.P. No. 1623/1991, for respondent No. 2.
S.K. Talsania i/b. Crawford Bayley Co., in W.P. No. 2918/1991, W.P. No. 286/1993, for respondent No. 1.
S.U. Kamdar with K.B. Swamy with Pooja Kulkarni Jyoti Saigal i/b. Bhasin Co., in W.P. Nos. 735/1992, 286/1993, for respondent No. 1.
S.S. Pakale, in W.P. No. 402/1996 along with Notice of Motion No. 306/1996 in W.P. Nos. 404, 424/1997, W.P. No. 405/1999, for petitioner.
K.K. Singhvi, Sr.A., S.K. Singhvi, i/b. Ramesh Dube, W.P. No. 1777 of 1996, W.P. Nos. 292, 293, 306, 1226, 1397/1997, in W.P. No. 2209 of 1999, for petitioner.
M.M. Varma i/b. Ramesh Gehani, W.P. No. 292/1997, for respondent No. 1.
P. Ramaswami, P.L. Naik, W.P. 293/1997, for respondent No. 1.
S.K. Talsania i/b. Crawford Bayley Co., W.P. Nos. 306, 404, 424, 1226, 1397, 1398/1997, for respondent No. 1.
K.K. Singhvi, Sr.A., S.K. Singhvi i/b. Susheel Mahadeshar, in W.P. Nos. 1396, 1398, 1399, 1538/1997, W.P. Nos. 1206, 2508/1998, W.P. Nos. 105, 412, 507, 1026, 1064/1999, for petitioners.
J.P. Cama, Birendra Saraf i/b, Crawford Bayley Co., in W.P. No. 1396/1997, for respondent No. 1.
J.P. Cama, Sr.A., Girish Kulkarni, Swati Deshpande, i/b. M.S. Bodhanwala Co., in W.P. Nos. 1399, 1538/1997, W.P. No. 507/1999, for respondent No. 1.
K.K. Singhavi, Sr.A., S.K. Singhvi, i/b. Tanu Mehta, in W.P. Nos. 121, 877, 903, 1159, 1854, 2470/1998, W.P. Nos. 544, 1864, 2806/1999, for petitioner.
R.K. Sharma, in W.P. Nos. 903, 1206, 2470/1998, 105, 544/1999, for respondent No. 5 in W.P. No. 1864/1999, for respondent No. 4.
S.R. Rajguru, in W.P. No. 1854/1998, for respondent No. 1.
P.K. Rele, Sr.A., Piyush Shah, in W.P. No. 405/1999, for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
C.U. Singh, i/b. S. Satpute Co., W.P. No. 544/1999, for respondent No. 1.
G.S. Rao, i/b. Purnanand Co., in W.P. No. 1026/1999, for respondent No. 1.
C.U. Kamdar with K.B. Swamy, Pooja Kulkarni Ms. Jyoti Saigal, i/b. Bhasin Co., in W.P. No. 2209/1999, for respondent No. 1.
K.K. Singh Sr.A. with S.K. Singhvi, i/b. R.A. Shaikh, in W.P. No. 2269/1999 along with Notice of Motion No. 14/2001, for petitioners.
Smt. Lata Desai i/b. Siganporia Dalvi, in W.P. No. 2269/1999 along with Notice of Motion No. 14 /2001 and in W.P. No. 2439/1999, for respondent No. 1.
V.P. Vaidya, in W.P. No. 2806 of 1999, for respondent No. 1(a).
S.M. Dixit, K.B. Swamy, Pooja Kulkarni and Jyoti Saigal i/b. Bhasin Co., in W.P. No. 2806/1999, for respondent No. 1.
Vatsal Varma i/b. Halwasia Co., in W.P. No. 2439/1999, for petitioners.
Smt. H.V. Mehta with R.C. Master, for Union of India in all writ petitions.

Judgment

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.:---The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above petitions agreed that the decision in Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1991 will decide the fate of all the above petitions. We have, therefore, confined the consideration of facts to Writ Petition No. 1623 of 1991.

2. The petitioner is a registered trade union, representing inter alia 235 security personnel, listed at Exhibit-A to the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'registered security guards' or as 'security personnel'). Respondent No. 1 is a statutory Corporation, initially established under the International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971. Under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 the Central Government constituted the Airport Authority of India. Under section 13(1) the undertakings of the International Airport Authority and National Airport Authority were transferred to and vested in the Airport Authority. Under section 13(2) the undertaking of the IAAI and NAA included all liabilities and obligations of whatever kind then subsisting in the IAAI and NAA. Respondent No. 2 is a statutory body (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) established under section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulations of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Security Guards Act' or S.G. Act'). Respondent No. 3 is the Union of India.

3. The security personnel were engaged by respondent No. 1 to provide watch and ward services through the Board. The various security personnel had been engaged on different dates between 1987 and 24th July, 1991. When the petition was filed on 25th April, 1991, Exhibit-A listed 125 security personnel. Pursuant to leave granted by this Court, the petition was amended by adding security personnel to the list at Exhibit-A on 2nd August, 1991 and 5th December, 1991.

4. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Union of India, through its Ministry of Labour, issued a notification bearing No. S.O. 779 (E) dated 9th December, 1976 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Contract Labour Act') as also the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Amendment Ordinance, 1986. The effect of the notification was to prevent respondent No. 1 from employing contract labour for watching its buildings. The notification has been struck down by the Supreme Court in the case of (Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers)1, reported in A.I.R. 2001 S.C.W. 374.

5. The petitioners contend that besides engaging the services of the registered security guards through respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 also employed security guards directly to perform similar work; that the services of the registered security guards are inter changeable with those of the regular security guards directly employed by respondent No. 1; that the security guards directly or regularly employed by respondent No. 1 received far higher wages, emoluments and benefits than the security personnel; that the working conditions of regular security guards are better than those of registered security guards and that respondent No. 1 was treating the registered security guards and the regular security guards directly employed by it as two separate categories. The facts are disputed by respondent No. 1. The details and legal consequence of the disputed facts will be considered later in this judgment.

6. The petitioners seek a declaration that a master and servant relationship exists between respondent No. 1 and the security personnel listed at Exhibit-A to the petition and that respondent No. 1 is therefore, their employer, within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; an injunction restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the security guards listed at Exhibit-A; a writ a mandamus, directing respondent No. 1 to pay the same wages and to extend the same service conditions to security guards listed at Exhibit-A as the wage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(Bom) 322

Cases Referred (6)