Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Hindustan Engineering and General Majdoor Union - Appellant
Versus
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8140 of 2021 & CM Appl. 25275 of 2021 with W.P.(C) 8145 of 2021 & CM Appl. 25284 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 8160 of 2021 & CM Appl. 25353 of 2021
Decided On : 11-08-2021
CGIT lacks jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and can only issue interim awards related to ongoing disputes.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33A - Writ petition filed by the Union for interim relief regarding the regularization of contractual employees at an airport - The CGIT rejected the application for interim relief stating it lacked jurisdiction under Section 33A. The court considered the issue of whether CGIT can pass interim orders, referencing precedent that distinguishes between interim injunctions and interim awards. (Paras 4, 7, 9, 12, 14)
(B) Interim relief - The court affirmed that interim orders cannot grant the full relief sought, and disruption of essential services is to be avoided. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Union represents workers at the airport whose contracts are with a contractor. The airport operator issued a new tender and the Union sought relief during ongoing proceedings at CGIT regarding non-regularization of employment.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the CGIT's order, indicating no relief against the airport operator as the employer had complied with labor law, and the interim relief sought was outside of CGIT's jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether CGIT has the power to grant interim relief under Section 33A, and the viability of granting relief that effectively secures a final remedy prematurely.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that CGIT cannot grant interim injunctions under Section 33A and any relief requested must align strictly with existing legal precedents regarding employer-employee relations within the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Result: Petition disposed of without granting interim relief.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner represents contractual workers at dial (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. debate over cgit's jurisdiction under section 33a (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. cgit's refusal of interim relief based on jurisdiction (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. distinction between interim awards and injunctions (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court denies interim relief due to new contractor's involvement (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.
2. The present three petitions have been preferred by the Petitioner - Union, which represents various employees working as contractual workers at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Respondent No.2 is the contractor through whom the employees were engaged. The contractual employees had approached the CGIT, seeking regularization and other reliefs. The said petitions are currently pending before the CGIT.
3. In the meantime, since the earlier contract was expiring, the Respondent No.1 i.e., M/s Delhi International Airport Private Ltd. (hereinafter, `DIAL') called for a fresh tender during April, 2021, for housekeeping and other services. Respondent No.3 was the successful tenderer. When the fresh tender was issued and the new contractor, i.e., Respondent No.3 was awarded the tender, an application under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be filed by the contractual employees seeking interim relief, before the CGIT, which was rejected by the impugned orders dated 26th March, 2021.
4. The submission of Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, ld counsel for the Petitioners is two-fold. Firstly, that the CGIT does have the power under Section 33A to pass interim orders. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Management of Hotel Imperial & Ors. v. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR 1959 SC 1342. He further submits that this position has been reiterated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Goa MRF Employees Union v. MRF Ltd., (2004) I LLJ 394 Bom, thus, the CGIT ought to have considered the prayer for interim relief and not held that this power does not exist. Secondly, he submits that in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3527, the Supreme Court has held that even in the case of contractual employees, preference would have to be given to the erstwhile contractual employees even where the notification under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 has not been issued. Such preference would take care of contractual employees who have been working in the establishment for a long period.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, ld. Counsel for the Respondents, submits that insofar as the power of the CGIT is concerned, the same is now settled in various judgments of this Court, including the judgment in Airport Authority of India vs. Pyare Lal & Ors., [W.P.(C) 16649/2004, decided on 17th November, 2006] which has discussed the entire law on the subject. It is submitted that the said judgment clearly distinguishes between interim injunctions and interim awards. While the CGIT does have the power to pass interim awards, it cannot pass interim injunctions, as is being sought for in the present case. Insofar as continuation of the contractual employees is concerned, he submits that since 1st April, 2021, the new contractor has already taken over and the manner in which the new contractor is engaging the contractual workers is not within the domain of Respondent No.1. So long as the new contractor complies with the tender conditions, Respondent No.1 does not interfere in the same.
6. Heard ld. counsels for the parties.
7. The first question that has been raised is in respect of the power of the CGIT. The CGIT, in the present case has held that there is no contravention of Section 33A and that no interim relief can be directed. The observations of the CGIT are as under:
"At the outset it is necessary to mention that
