Casual workers engaged by a Contractor for Air India, on a no work no pay basis, do not acquire any right to claim permanency, particularly when the work is not prohibited under the Contract Labour (Rehabilitation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and there is no obligation on Air India to absorb or regularize them after the contract ends.

( 1 ) THIS writ application has been filed by two petitioners. Both the petitioners were engaged on diverse dates as casual workers in the capacity of Security Strappers. The Air India Limited had engaged a Contractor, namely, M/s. General Security Information Services for supply of certain casual labourers and the petitioner was supplied to the Air India by the said Contractor to work as a casual labour.

( 2 ) THE basic contention of the petitioners is that they have been engaged as a Security Strapper with Air India with effect from 23rd of December, 1991 and has been in continuous service for over 240 days without any break. Therefore, they are entitled to be absorbed in the permanent employment of air India.

( 3 ) THE petitioners have also contended that the work carried out by them is perennial in nature and therefore in accordance with the established legal principles they are entitled to be absorbed in the Air India as a permanent staff.

( 4 ) IT was also submitted that all benefits including medical benefits were given to the petitioners by the Air India. Therefore, it should be presumed that they were treated as a regular employee of Air India.

( 5 ) THE further contention of the petitioners is that some other contractual workers who were working as sweepers and/or cleaners have been absorbed by regularizing their service pursuant to a conciliation proceeding held before the assistant Labour Commissioner.

( 6 ) APPREHENDING termination the petitioners have filed in the instant application. It is contended that the Air India was going to terminate their service in spite of an industrial dispute being raised by the Union with regard to the demand of employees of the contractor.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the respondents it was submitted that this writ application was not maintainable as because an industrial dispute is still pending. It was submitted that as a matter of policy the Air India was trying to prohibit employment of contract labour for the purpose of strapping of baggage. It is also submitted that there is no permanent vacancy in the said category and as per the present policy and the financial position and the company is such that no fresh recruitment is being made. It was further submitted that by reason of a Government Circular issued by the concerned Ministry, the Security Personnel to be employed at the Airports should be through the Director General of resettlement and in view of a uniform policy and also by reason of an order passed by the Kerala High Court the Air India was under an obligation to engage Security Personnel through the said Director General of Resettlement from ex-servicemen.

( 8 ) IT was submitted that the petitioners were not engaged by the Air India limited but was engaged by the contractors and was merely working in Air india as a casual worker on no work no pay basis. Therefore, the petitioners do not have any subsisting right to claim permanency.

( 9 ) IT was also submitted that the application was moved on the basis of a misrepresentation of fact inasmuch as the petitioners were actually terminated from the service before filing of the application. But the petitioners deliberately avoided service of the letter of termination and in spite of having knowledge that they were terminated from service has sought to move this Court allegedly on the basis of an apprehension of termination of service.

( 10 ) IT was further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were retrenched in accordance with the established principle of law under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and all amounts due and payable in terms of the relevant provisions of the said Act have been duly paid to the petitioners.

( 11 ) IT was further submitted that the conciliation proceeding was pending at the time when the said application was moved. Therefore, the writ application should not be entertained.

( 12 ) THE respondents have also submitted that the petitioners were working a