Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

The petitioner is a registered trade union, registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The petitioner claims to be representing the workers in the Mumbai Airports and the present petition relates to the cause of 11 (eleven) workmen, who were working as sweepers in the staff colony of the Airport Authority of India at Sahar, Mumbai.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3, who is the statutory authority, had entered into an agreement with respondent No.4 as a Joint Venture Company in respect of operating of Mumbai Airport. Until April, 2006, the Mumbai Airport was exclusively operated and run by respondent No.3. Thereafter as a result of the agreement, the right to operate, maintain, develop, design, construct, modernise, etc., was given to respondent No.4, whilst respondent No.3 retained certain limited functions with them. Amongst other, respondent No.3 was to procure and ensure that the employees perform such functions and undertake such duties as may be required by respondent No.4 including taking of disciplinary action or even removal from the airport. Various rights and obligations were stated under the agreement between respondent No.3 and respondent No.4. In terms of letter dated 2nd May, 2006, Exhibit "C" to the petition, respondent No.3 declared the arrangement between the parties and also, while referring to the agreement, clarified that those employees not absorbed or not willing to be absorbed in the Joint Venture Company would continue to be the employees of respondent No.3 and be re-deployed at other units of respondent No.3. Large number of contract employees were employed to carry out myriad of jobs and work which in fact was of a permanent nature. The 11 workmen, though have been working continuously for a considerable time and doing the work of sweeping, cleaning, dusting, washing, etc., were threatened to be terminated. Number of workers filed a writ petition before the High Court, being Civil Writ Petition No.2362 of 1990, and by order dated 30th August, 1990 the petition was admitted and interim relief of status quo was granted to the petitioners therein. In another writ petition, being Civil Writ Petition No.504 of 1991, the High Court had directed respondent No.3 to consider on its own motion the regularisation of workers actually employed to do the work of sweeping and cleaning, etc. The orders of the High Court were challenged before the Supreme Court and in Special Leave Petition No.15156 of 1996 in respect of sweepers and cleaners, vide order dated 11th April, 1996, the Supreme Court directed that the said workers including those presently concerned, were to be permanently absorbed by respondent No.3. The said order was not complied with and even wages, according to the workmen, were not being paid to them as per requirements of law.

3. In these circumstances on 12th July, 2005 the petitioner raised a demand with respondent No.3 demanding that the workmen be declared / treated as permanent employees and various benefits be granted to them in accordance with law. Reminders to this were also sent by the petitioner and respondent no.2 was requested to intervene in the matter under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and refer the dispute for adjudication. However, since nothing was materialized, vide letter dated 22nd December, 2005 respondent No.3 informed the Assistant Labour Commissioner that they would deny the averments made in the notice of demand and 11 Safaiwalas protected by the High Court, presently working in Airport Authority of India Colony were being paid by respondent No.3 and the writ petition had already been disposed of. It was stated that the letter of workmen claiming to be the permanent employees of respondent No.3 and demanding benefits retrospectively was incorrect and in fact the same was not received in their office.

4. The petitioner Union pursued the matter before the Authority and the Assistant L