N.M. JAMDAR, J.

1. The Petitioner, Airports Authority of India has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 26 May 2008.

2. The Tribunal, by the impugned Award, has directed the Petitioner to treat the workers involved in the Reference as permanent employees of the Petitioner, and to pay them wages and consequential benefits at par with other permanent employees, from the date of Reference, that is 7 March 2003.

3. The Petitioner is a statutory body, constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. The Respondent No. 1, Indian Airports Employees Union (the Union) is a trade union, which seeks to espouse the cause of the workers involved in the Reference. The Petitioner carries out its activities at various places in India in around 120 airports in the country, including the airport at Mumbai, the Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport. For discharging its duties, the Petitioner engages permanent employees, casual workers and contract workers. The dispute in the present petition relates to the workers employed on contract basis at the airport in Mumbai.

4. The workers involved in the Reference can be grouped in three categories. The group A: the twenty workers engaged as Loaders in Cargo Complex. The group B: twelve workers initially engaged for baggage conveyor belt operation and subsequently working on maintenance of electrical installation. Group C: Nine workers engaged for maintenance of conveyor belt system.

5. This litigation dates back to the year 1989. The Union approached this Court on 18 May 1989 by way of Writ Petition No. 1494 of 1989. In this petition the Petitioner and the contractors through whom workforce was engaged, were made respondents. The Union alleged that the contractors are mere intermediaries used by the Petitioner to employ the workers. It was contended that the workers had worked continuously for a period ranging from three to five years but were given less wages. It was contended that contract labour can be employed only in accordance with the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (CLRA Act) which mandates that the contractor and the principal employer must have valid licenses and registrations issued under the Act. Union asserted that the Petitioner and the contractors had no such registrations and licenses. Union asserted that all the ingredients for abolishing the contract labour system in the Petitioners establishment, were present. Accordingly, a direction was sought that the Petitioner should immediately absorb all the workers mentioned in the petition and to reinstate the workers whose services were dispensed with. Rule was issued in the petition on 27 June 1989. The Division bench, on 5 September 1989, directed that the workers be continued to be employed, as prima facie names of the Petitioners were not mentioned in the registration certificate and the contractors did not have a license required under the Act.

6. A Notice of Motion No. 3404 of 1990 was taken out which came up before the Division bench. This notice of motion concerned various set of employees, including the ones in the present petition. The notice of motion was disposed of by order dated 3 May 1991. As regards the workers concerned in the present petition, the Division bench observed that a contractor, respondent no. 7 therein, initially undertook the contract. Thereafter by a respondent no. 6 therein, and at that point of time, it was being undertaken by one M/s JAC Enterprises whose contract was valid until 31 January 1991. The Division bench directed the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (the Board) constituted under the CLRA Act to investigate the demands of the Union for prohibiting employment of contract labour for various works carried out by the Petitioner under Section 10 of CLRA Act. The Board was directed to make a report to the Central Government on or before 30 July 1991. The Petition