Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1986
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.
Gulf Air Employees Association – Petitioner
Versus
Gulf Air Company & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.193, 544 of 2007
Decided On : 11-12-2017
Mr. V.P. Vaidya for the Petitioner in WP/193/2007 and for the Respondent No.1 in WP/544/2007
Mr. Piyush Shah for the Petitioner in WP/544/2007 and for the Respondent No.2 in WP/193/2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the employment relationship between contract labor, the contractor, and the principal employer, and the application of legal principles to ascertain the obligations of the principal employer.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute - Employment Dispute - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Section 10(1), Section 10(2A) - The judgment discusses the dispute arising from the termination of employees engaged by a contractor and utilized by an air transport company. The court analyzed the nature of the employment relationship, control and supervision, and the contractual arrangements between the parties. The court referred to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. and International Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union and Anr. to determine the legal principles governing the employment of contract labor and the obligations of the principal employer. The court concluded that the employees were not directly employed by the air transport company and upheld the dismissal of the claim against the company.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute arising from the termination of employees engaged by a contractor and utilized by an air transport company. The trade union representing the employees claimed that the termination was illegal and unjustified, while the air transport company contended that the employees were not directly employed by them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employees were not directly employed by the air transport company and that the trade union had no locus standi to raise the industrial dispute. The court also held that the industrial tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions to the contractor, who was not a party to the reference.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of the employment relationship between the employees, the contractor, and the air transport company, and the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal to issue directions to a non-party contractor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in the Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors. and International Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union and Anr. to determine the nature of the employment relationship and the obligations of the principal employer.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition No.193 of 2007 was dismissed, and the Writ Petition No.544 of 2007 was allowed. The observations and directions in the impugned award were quashed and set aside.
1. Both these Petitions arise from the award dated 23rd May, 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in Reference CGIT 20 of 2001.
2. The Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 and Sub Section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, had by order No.L11012/65/2001 (IR (CI)) dated 23rd November, 2001 made the following reference :
“Whether the demand raised by the Gulf Air Employees Association that Shri Laxman Martand Bhise and 15 other employees listed in the annexure thereto be reinstated and given benefits of regularization and permanency in the employment of Gulf Air Company is legal and justified? If yes, the said employees are entitled to what relief and from which date?”
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.193 of 2007 is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 whereas, the Respondent No.1 is an Air Transport Company. The Petitioner-Union is representing 16 employees employed by the Respondent No.2Contractor and who are engaged by the Respondent No.1Company as loaders.
4. The Petitioner claims that these employees had put in service for about 12 to 21 years despite which the Respondent No.1Company did not regularize their services contending that they were the employees of the contractor. The Petitioner-Union, therefore, filed a complaint of unfair labour practice. The Petitioner-Union had also filed an application seeking interim protection, which was granted from time to time. The said application for interim relief was heard and came to be dismissed. The Petitioner claims that after the dismissal of the said application, the services of the said employees came to be orally terminated. Subsequently, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. Vs. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors., the complaint came to be dismissed. After several rounds of litigation and in view of the demands raised by the Petitioner-Union, the Central Government referred the above reference to the Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication.
5. The case set out by the Petitioner-Union in the statement of claim is that the services of the concerned employees were engaged by the Respondent No.1Company through the Respondent No.2Contractor. The said employees were engaged to unload the luggage of the passengers. The services rendered by the employees were of permanent and perennial nature. The Petitioner-Union claimed that despite the employees rendering services for a period ranging from 12 to 21 years, the Respondent No.2Contractor orally terminated their services during the pendency of proceedings for regularisation and permanency, without following due process of law. The Petitioner-Union claims that the termination of the employees is per se illegal and unjustified.
6. The Respondent No.1Company has questioned the locus of the Union to raise the dispute stating that the concerned employees were not the employees of the Respondent No.1Company and were not the members of the Petitioner-Union. The Respondent No.1- Company has stated that there is no employer employee relationship between the Respondent No.1Company and the said employees. The services of these employees, who were employed by the Respondent No.2Contractor as loaders, were availed by Respondent No.1Company and several other air transport companies. These employees were protected under various statutes like ESI and Payment of Bonus Act, none of them were deprived of any legitimate benefits. The Respondent No.1Company claimed that they had neither employed the employees nor terminated their services. Hence, the demand of the Petitioner-Union against the Respondent No.1Company is not maintainable.
7. The Petitioner-Union herein filed his rejoinder wherein it has denied that the employees were not in the employment of the Respondent No.1 company. The Petitioner-Union reiterated that the said employees were employed by Respondent No.1Company through the Respon
