The main legal point established in the judgment is that consistent claims made by employees regarding their employer preclude them from subsequently claiming to be direct employees of another entity. Non-adherence to the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 could lead to prosecution but did not automatically establish an employer-employee relationship.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Palli, J.

1. The present writ petition preferred by the Airports Authority of India assails the award dated 08.11.2004 passed by the learned Labour Court-II, New Delhi as also the corrigendum dated 07.02.2005 passed by the respondent no.13. Under the impugned award the learned Labour Court has, after coming to the conclusion that the respondents were employees of the petitioner and had been illegally terminated w.e.f. 31.05.1993, directed the petitioner to reinstate them with 10% backwages from the date of their termination.

2. The petitioner is a statutory body created under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 who on 24.08.1979, entered into an agreement with M/s Ex Servicemen Air Link Transport Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘EATS’) for grant of license to run the services of retrieving passengers’ luggage trollies at the Delhi Airport, which agreement was extended from time to time. As per the terms of this license, EATS was to be a paid a fixed license fee and was required to engage atleast eight porters to carry out the work assigned to it. On 18.12.1986, in order to fulfil its contractual obligations, EATS engaged the respondents to work as Porters at the Airport. Subsequently in November 1992, the petitioner decided to engage a common agency for retrieval and maintenance of trollies as also baggage trolley advertisement. Pursuant thereto, when the petitioner’s license agreement with EATS came to an end on 31.05.1993, the petitioner granted the license for provision of these services to M/s TDI (India) International Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, M/s TDI (India) International Pvt. Ltd assumed charge on 01.06.1993 and engaged its own workforce to carry out the jobs assigned to it in terms of the licence. Consequently, the services of the respondent-workmen who had been engaged by EATS were terminated, whereupon they raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner, and not EATS. The reference in this dispute was made by the Central Government on 02.01.1995 in the following terms:

“Whether Shri A.S. Yadav and 50 others (as per the list enclosed) were the workmen of the International Airport Authority of India? If so, whether the action of the Airport Director of IAAI, New Delhi in terminating their services w.e.f. 31.5.1993 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled to?”

3. Upon the reference being made, the respondents filed their claim before the Labour Court stating that they had been employed by EATS to render specific services for the petitioner, but due to the petitioner apprehending adverse consequences of their trade union activities, they had, under the garb of retrenchment, been terminated by EATS at the behest of the petitioner. They contended that even the termination of the petitioner’s contract with EATS was mala fide and driven by an intent to curb the respondents’ trade union activities. It was also urged that though the respondents had subsequently received an offer from the Executive Director of EATS to re-employ them in the post of Security Guard, they declined this offer on the ground that the same was made after the dispute had already been raised. The respondents, thereafter, led evidence wherein they reiterated that though they had been appointed and paid their respective salaries by EATS, the same was at the behest of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, in its written statement as well as the evidence led by it, the petitioner opposed the respondents’ claim by contending that once, as per their own stand, it was EATS which was the respondents’ employer, no reference/claim was maintainable against the petitioner. By relying on the respondents’ admission in the demand notice dated 21.05.1994 of having been appointed by EATS, the petitioner contended that the non-impleadment of EATS, which was a necessary party in the industrial dispute, was fatal as the dispute could not be decided without considering the contractor’s stand which was, admittedly, the real empl